Saturday, August 13, 2011

BDO Overview



Christ just look at this picture - Matron more drugs please





This is just a quick post to inform our readers of the latest Scrutiny dates. They are as follows 




The Sub Panel will be holding the following public hearings next week through a conference call arrangement

Tuesday 16th August            3pm Blampied room              Mr. Warcup

Wednesday 17th August  11am Blampied Room              Mr. Power




One thing that will jump out at you is the missing name of one D/Supt Mick Gradwell who was SIO of the child abuse investigation and the one who would not shut up slagging off Lenny Harper and his team. I will be asking the Scrutiny panel next week about what exactly is going on concerning Gradwell and his non submittal of any everdince to date. One can only hope for all the Abuse Survivors and the fact he was SIO that his everdince is in the post.



It's time to get back on the BDO case


This could have huge implications for the committee of enquiry if Mick Gradwell keeps his silence.  He has got to defend himself as SIO and try and justify why he was leaking information to a known Historic Abuse Denier David Rose. 

If he keeps his silence and doesn't explain himself then his role as SIO must be investigated and looked at before any COI

RICO SORDA



They Respond





BDO Alto - 11





Exposing the shocking Jersey Child Abuse Cover -up






Keeping our readers informed as we go along






Home Affairs Minister Senator Le Marquand replies to my email 





An utterly Shocking and Horrific Disclosure



What he  said has left me feeling angry, shocked and disgusted. We are now starting to pull apart the wretched toxic cancer that lurks in all aspects of Government, Judiciary and SOJP.  Below is a quote from the email I received from the Home Affairs Minister. I want the readers of this blog to think very carefully about what he is stating, the implications of what he is stating and the seriousness of the allegation. I asked the Home Affairs Minister a simple question, "who leaked the draft report to Child Abuse Denier David Rose". The answer that came back is quite Staggering &  Shocking.


 


Senator Le Marquand


"It appears that the leak took place within the States of Jersey Police. There was a brief investigation at the time and I have recently asked the new Chief Officer of Police to look at this again."   I take any such leak of confidential information seriously. Yours sincerely, Ian Le Marquand.         




Now just think about that again.



  A serving member of the States of Jersey Police has leaked a confidential draft report to a Journalist who is a known Child Abuse Denier. This has happened whilst "Operation Rectangle" is still a live Police Investigation. A report that is 100% biased against the former SIO Lenny Harper. It was used to trash a Child Abuse Investigation and  the local media were picking up awards for nothing.



Who did BDO Alto send that report too? was it Acting Chief Officer David Warcup? How many officers had access to this Draft Report? Has a third party been used?



The New Police Chief Mike Bowron must find  answers to this most shocking of leaks. You can see why the Abuse Victims never trusted the Police before Power & Harper took over.  CPO Bowron must  let us know what happened with the original investigation, who investigated it, and what conclusions were reached. 



When I received that bombshell from Senator Le Marquand I started researching the years before 2008 and the SOJP. Another reason for doing so was an email exchange that I have been having with a States Member who will remain nameless for now. What I found was total animosity towards Lenny Harper. This was going back to early 2005, the new leadership were routing out bullying and corruption in the force, that was not the 'Jersey Way'. When 2008 came around it was payback time. I will be dealing with this in later posts. 



The Abuse Victims have never been a priority to the ruling elite, the majority of government or the local media - that is a fact




Here is the Email exchange in full



From: rico sorda

Subject: RE: BDO Alto

To: "Ian Le Marquand"

Cc: "roy herissier"

Date: Wednesday, 8 June, 2011, 17:39


Dear Senator


The BDO Alto report was used in trashing the Historical Abuse Investigation. Now, if they cant get the date of when they started right then what of their report? Let me also inform you that BDO Alto never contacted the former Chief of Police nor his SIO to give the report a counter balance.  Senator,  go to page 1 of the BDO report and read the forwarding letter, it sounds pretty straight forward to me. 


I have no doubt discussions went on previous but according to BDO they started on the 29th September 2009 surly they are not that incompetent Senator? 



it should be obvious to you that the report could not come into existence in such a short period "


Thats right Senator I wonder what could have happened? How did the Child Abuse Denier David Rose quote the so called report? So accurate is his piece, he was leaked either from the SOJP or Home Affairs even before a report existed. Who was privy to such information?


This Report was used to trash a Child Abuse Investigation and your telling me they cant get  a date on page 1 right?



Nothing stacks up with this. Any information you have will be investigated and researched



Kind Regards 


Rico Sorda





From: Ian Le Marquand

Subject: RE: BDO Alto

To: "'rico sorda'" 

Cc: "Roy Le Herissier"

Date: Friday, 17 June, 2011, 12:06


Dear Mr. Sorda, I am now able to explain the late date for the confirmation of the terms on which BDO Alto were retained as I have now received information as to the timeline in relation to the commissioning of the BDO Alto report. I have already given you the date of the Ministerial Act in February 2009. Meetings between BDO Alto and my officers took place soon after but the full terms of their engagement were not confirmed until the date in September 2009. There were some technical issues in relation to this. However, BDO Alto had clearly started work on this report well before then. A leak of sections of a draft report took place in late September or early October 2009. BDO Alto have confirmed that they were not the source of the leak and that at that stage they had not sent any documents to this department and so the leak did not occur in the Home Affairs Department. My staff picked up on the Mail on Sunday article and made enquiries of BDO Alto and of the States Police. It appears that the leak took place within the States of Jersey Police. There was a brief investigation at the time and I have recently asked the new Chief Officer of Police to look at this again. I take any such leak of confidential information seriously. Yours sincerely, Ian Le Marquand



My Reply

From:



Dear Senator

 

Thank you for your reply and information

 

As you can imagine this has left me horrified. The SOJP leaking a caveated report ( Not interviewing the main person Lenny Harper) to a Child Abuse denier David Rose. WHY?

 

I will take a little time going over what you have just said. This has left me feeling very upset. Just when I think things cant get any worse over here. If you take leaking of information so seriously why wasn't there any mention of this until I started Investigating.

 

Kind regards

 


Rico Sorda 



There are other issues I need to look at concerning the Home Affairs Ministers Reply but for now I just want to concentrate on the Shocking Revalation that a member of the States of Jersey Police Force leaked a one sided report to a CHILD ABUSE DEINER JOURNALIST DURING A LIVE POLICE INVESTIGATION



Just how bad is it over here? They were using David Rose to Trash a Child Abuse Investigation. He was being engaged for sometime. 



We are swimming in the highest levels of corruption and incompetence 



How can Children ever be safe over here?



Rico Sorda




BDO Alto -12



Things are moving fast 



Does it all stack up?



Just a quick post. I think its very important that we keep moving with this as it happens.



If anyone was in any doubt as to the local Media's involvement in Covering-up the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation then today is it. Yesterday in the States of Jersey the Minister of Home Affairs gave the biggest possible nod that the person who leaked a seriously 'not fit for purpose' report to the Child Abuse Denier David Rose  was the former Senior Investigating Officer (Mick Gradwell). The local MSM have not thought this a worthy news item for the simple reason it goes against all the rubbish they have been peddling these past couple of years in trashing the Abuse Investigation. Not sure if this is a 'D' notice but in a hick town like Jersey just a couple of phone calls.



Some parts don't stack - You can listen to the Senator here:


THEJERSEYWAY



He states that the most likely person to have leaked the Report was former SIO Mick Gradwell. He says,  "enquiries by my staff clearly pointed in his direction"



The Enquires by his staff? What of the brief Police Investigation?  How do staff from the Home Affairs dept find out who is leaking reports at the SOJP? None of this stacks up. What has the "SOJP" got to say about this? Will the investigation under Mike Bowron come to a different conclusion? 




I believe Mick Gradwell left the SOJP in late August 2009




What did Mick Gradwell  actually Leak?




Dear Mr. Sorda, I am now able to explain the late date for the confirmation of the terms on which BDO Alto were retained as I have now received information as to the timeline in relation to the commissioning of the BDO Alto report. I have already given you the date of the Ministerial Act in February 2009. Meetings between BDO Alto and my officers took place soon after but the full terms of their engagement were not confirmed until the date in September



The full terms of their engagement were not confirmed until September 29th 2009 - a full month after Mick Gradwell had left the SOJP. Are we saying they had completed an Interim report before they had even finalised their Terms of Reference -  and then handed it over to the States of Jersey Police? Is that a professional way of conducting business?



NOW CHECK THIS OUT



This is why we need to know what conclusions  the "Brief Police Investigation" came up with because basically "NOTHING STACKS UP"




There were some technical issues in relation to this. However, BDO Alto had clearly started work on this report well before then. A leak of sections of a draft report took place in late September or early October 2009



They had clearly started work states Senator Le Marquand, really?  We will need to see proof of that.  



A  leak of  sections of a draft report took place in late September early October 2009 states Senator Le Marquand. We will need to see proof of that - Gradwell left in August 2009.



When did the BDO send their draft report to the SOJP.  Was it  a month before they had even finalised their terms of reference?



We know that the services of David Rose had been purchased as far back as May 2008 this was before Warcup & Gradwell had even stepped foot on Jersey 



So, What do we know about this "BDO FARCE"



1. There was a ministerial decision dating back to Feb 2009



2. They never interviewed  Lenny Harper or Graham Power



3. David Warcup assisted the consultant Mike Kellet  in  compiling the report



4. BDO gave the SOJP an interim report before they had secured their terms of reference



4. Wiltshire used and quoted the BDO Interim report in their own report without mentioning the caveat found at  .2 and no fixed TOR's



5. Senior Investigating Officer Mick Gradwell leaves the SOJP in August 2009



6. Home Affairs and BDO sign Engagement Letter on 29th September 2009



7 The Minister for Home Affairs says that it looks like the Senior Investigating Officer Mike Gradwell leaked the interim report to David Rose in late September early October 2009



8. David Rose quotes the leaked BDO Interim report on the 4th October 2009 



9. May 2010 Home Affairs receive finished report



10. ILM introduces it and doesn't explain to anyone that its a seriously flawed report 



11. July 15th & 16th  2010 the JEP run with the BDO Report - Trash the Abuse Investigation, Graham Power, Lenny Harper  etc etc



12. NOW ILM NEEDS TO FIND SOME SERIOUS ANSWERS TO SOME VERY SERIOUS QUESTIONS




Could it be that Mick Gradwell is the best solution?



We need to see that  brief Investigation don't we Mr Bowron



Rico Sorda



FORMER SIO MICK GRADWELL 



But today, Mr Gradwell hit back.

He said: “There’s no mystery about what I’ve said.

"I thought it was a shambles with no financial management.

“I don’t regard that as a leak, though having worked there I’m not surprised at this.

“I’m on record as quoting information from the report.

"I released it when asked the questions on TV, online and in the papers.

“I didn’t leak a report. After I left I said my version of what happened including a mass overspend, a poorly-managed fiasco where the lead detective made unnecessary trips and took his notes with him.”






BDO ALTO - 13




Unlucky for sum 




Scrutiny Sub Panel call in the BDO Alto report




Today at  8.30am the Scrutiny Sub Panel released a press release to all the Main Stream Media concerning the pulling in and Review of the BDO Alto Report. 



Are we going to be confronted with the same sham that happened on Monday the 20th when the Home Affairs Minister stated during question time that the former SIO of the Historic Child Abuse Investigation Mick Gradwell probably leaked a one sided report to the Child Abuse Denier Journalist David Rose. No one from the local Media has reported this.



Deputy Pitman: 'Will the Minister clarify what was the conclusion into the brief investigation into who within the Police Force leaked the interim BDO Alto report to a UK child abuse denier journalist and has anyone been suspended over the action?'


Senator Le Marquand: 'The person most likely was the former SIO (Senior Investigating Officer) who took on the Historic Abuse Inquiry and who left in August 2009 with very noisy publicity for his predecessors.'




I REPEAT NO ONE FROM OUR LOCAL MEDIA REPORTED THIS OR MENTIONED IT.




IT DOESN'T FIT THEIR AGENDA



When confronted some of the local hacks denied all knowledge of what Senator Le Marquand had said; This is both Frightening and Dangerous



How will children be safe when we have this level of Journalism in the Island



Who will ever be the whistleblower 10 yrs down the line when they cant even express their concerns to a trusted journalist. Nothing has changed. The Editors I would guess are the real danger to the Children of Jersey  they control their hacks. 




The JEP and BBC Jersey were present during question Time 



I believe CTV tripped over an award on the way in and missed it by a BAFTA 



Looking back from when I first posted about the BDO Report my first concern about it is still my major concern. The fact that between the Home Affairs dept and BDO never saw fit to contact or interview Lenny Harper in the making of this report is scandalous. The police at the time of operation rectangle had their say, David Warcup was helping it along, LCG & Martin Grimes had their say  everyone apart from the main person had their say; WHY?




Yes, their are countless other serious questions hanging over this report but all we want are the answers to the questions. As you can imagine Senator Le Marquand is itching for this to get under way for the simple reason I have got it all wrong.  Im very much looking forward to hearing the Senator putting all our fears to bed with proper documentation, all timed and stamped between BDO and Home Affairs and not just run off the printing machine at Claxtons.




The Scrutiny Panel must also look into the very serious leak of  Lenny Harpers Confidential Wiltshire Statement to BDO not only do we have Data Protection issues but also possible criminal action. All we want are the answers. Remember this report was used by the Home Affairs Minister to trash a Child Abuse Investigation.




I have informed the Scrutiny Sub Panel that im prepared to attend the public meeting, what entails im not sure. If they want me to speak I have no problems with that as I want answers.



I would like to thank the the Scrutiny Home Affairs Panel and their excellent Scrutiny Officer Mike Haden for their help and professionalism in putting this together



Rico Sorda


Team Voice





SCRUTINY 

 

PRESS RELEASE 

 

23 June 2011 

 

 

Education and Home Affairs Panel 

 

Review of the Inquiry into the financial probity of 

the Haut De La Garenne Police Investigation 

 


The Education and Home Affairs Panel has agreed to form a Sub Panel to be led by Deputy Trevor Pitman to investigate issues arising from the BDO Alto review which was commissioned by the Minister for Home Affairs to examine the financial management of Operation Rectangle (the Historic Child Abuse Enquiry).  

 

St Helier based accountancy firm BDO Alto published their report in July 2010, making strong criticisms of financial management and oversight failures during the Historical Child Abuse Enquiry, highlighting the role of Mr. L. Harper, the Senior Investigating Officer (SIO). 

 

Serious concerns have now been brought to the Panel’s attention about certain aspects of the way in which BDO Alto carried out their review. These concerns question whether the report is fair, accurate and independent.  

 


The concerns are in summary: 


• The fact that the Mr. L. Harper, who was the subject of significant criticism in the report, was not interviewed by BDO Alto nor given the opportunity to respond to the findings in the report; 


• The BDO Alto report refers to confidential statements made by Mr. Harper to the Wiltshire enquiry, while Mr. Harper himself has been refused a copy of his own statement;

 

• An ‘interim report by financial auditors’ was leaked to the Mail on Sunday in October 2009, eight months before the report was submitted to the Minister and was used in a highly critical report on the conduct of the Haut de la Garenne inquiry. It appears that a Senior Police Officer was responsible for this leak. 


Deputy Trevor Pitman, who is leading this review said: 


‘The Panel believes that the issues deserve our attention and need to be investigated. We are not trying to reopen the whole debate about the conduct of the Haut de la Garenne Enquiry. The Comptroller and Auditor General has already commented on the substance of the BDO Alto report and its recommendations. We will focus solely on the questions arising from the concerns about how this report was produced and leaked to a national newspaper. We will be requesting explanations in writing from the Minister, BDO Alto, the States of Jersey Police and Mr. Harper and will conduct a public hearing a suitable opportunity next month. We will then report our findings to the States. As always we would be interested to hear from anyone with relevant information to contribute to our review. They can contact the Scrutiny Office.’ 

 

The following terms of reference have been agreed 


To examine the instructions under which BDO Alto was engaged to review the financial management of Operation Rectangle and their methods for gathering evidence for this review; 


To clarify the connection between the BDO Alto review and the review on the same matter separately commissioned by the Acting Chief Officer of Police; 


To identify the reasons why the Senior Investigating Officer for Operation Rectangle was not interviewed by BDO Alto and was not given the opportunity to respond to the report’s findings; 


To clarify the liaison between BDO Alto and the Wiltshire Police, in particular the references in the BDO Alto report to the Senior Investigating Officer’s statements to Wiltshire Police; 


To investigate how details of the review into the financial management of Operation Rectangle came to be published in a national newspaper in October 2009; and 


To consider the implications of the Sub Panel’s findings. 


Ends 


Notes to editors: 

The BDO Alto review is available on the States website 

http://www.gov.je/Government/Departments/HomeAffairs/Pages/Reports.aspx?ReportYear=2010 


Sub Panel Membership Deputy T Pitman (Chairman), Deputy R Le Hérissier Deputy M Tadier, and Deputy D. Wimberley 


For further information on this review, please contact: 

Mike Haden, Scrutiny Officer   Tel 441076 or email m.haden@gov.je  

  

For Media Interviews - Deputy T Pitman - Lead member  Tel 07797 824243 or email 

t.pitman@gov.je  



BDO ALTO -14





Senator / Home Affairs Minister- Ian Le Marquand is wanting Deputy T Pitman to step down as Chairman of the Home Affairs Scrutiny panel investigating the BDO Alto Report.  What is unfolding here can be read on the Deputy's blog.  I find this just staggering. The Senator will be taken out of his comfort zone when questioned by Scrutiny, as a former Magistrate he isn't used to this. If there's nothing to hide then why the big shakes about who's on the panel? 




thebaldtruthjersey.blogspot




The Above Blog by Deputy T  Pitman  is a must  read 





 Like I said     "NOTHING TO HIDE NOTHING TO FEAR"



Today Lenny Harper appeared on BBC Radio Jersey. What was apparent from the outset was that the host Roger Barra who conducted the interview had the Monday morning blues.  Im not sure how researched he was on the matter but as soon as he heard the words Abuse Survivors he got all aggressive and cut the interview dead. Now, the trick with BBC Jersey, and one that Lenny Harper should have used is this; Mr Harper should have said that BDO Alto bombed Jersey during the Second World, not only would this had hit all the right notes, he would still be on there  talking. BBC Jersey love WW2, as do I.


TJW-HARPER INTERVIEW




When I first looked at BDO Alto I had no idea where it was going to lead  us . It has just ballooned in a way I didn't expect. I feel like we sneaked in the back door. Evidence, research and facts is all we are interested in. Do people in Jersey really appreciate just how corrupt the place is? Morally, Socially, in fact on every level.  I will be blogging tomorrow on the latest concerning the Committee of Enquiry. All we can do is keep you, the readers, as up to date as we can.  I have posted some Interviews below which should be viewed. I would like to thank Ian Evans for helping me out, he is always on hand and much appreciated.



http://www.scrutiny.gov.je/review.asp?reviewid=194




What I have discovered concerning Mick Gradwell  is that in all his Interviews and news paper pieces he never explains what he brought to the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation. Every interview I come across is Gradwell trashing what went before him. What did he bring to the Investigation? Just watch and listen the clips shown below.



I also suggest you watch the ILM ON Channel TV. 




Below I reproduce Lenny Harpers Scrutiny Submission. It can be found on their website.  Also, Mr Harper will be taking part in the Scrutiny Hearing on the 4th July. This will be done via video link up or failing that a conference call.  The Scrutiny hearings are open to the public. The panel have asked me to attend on the 15th I have agreed to this.


Rico Sorda


Truth, Honesty & Integrity


Team Voice






                                                     LEONARD HARPER



 SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – WRITTEN SUBMISSION 


 •   I have been asked to submit a written response in respect of the BDO report into the use of financial resources during the Historical Abuse Investigation.  This is to be a pre-cursor to my evidence to the Sub Committee at a later stage.

 

• In its letter to me of 23rd June 2011, the Sub Committee lays out the three concerns which have instigated the Scrutiny Review.  These are,

 

•  “The fact that as Senior Investigating Officer you were not interviewed by BDO Alto nor given the opportunity to respond to the findings in the report despite the fact that you were subject of significant criticism in the report;

 

• The BDO Alto report refers to confidential statements made by yourself to the Wiltshire enquiry;

 

• Critical sections of a ‘leaked report by financial auditors’ were quoted by a report of the Mail on Sunday (4th October 2009) only a few days after  the BDO Alto report states that they were engaged to undertake the review (reference to their engagement letter dated 29 September 2009). It appears that a Senior Police Officer was responsible for this leak.”

 

• The Sub Committee quite understandably comments that it is not the intention to “stray into broader issues relating to the Haut de la Garenne enquiry nor to the substance of the findings in the BDO report.”  However, it does state that it intends to “undertake a review of the issues arising from these (above) concerns.”  In order for me to illustrate the issues that I see as arising from the concerns outlined at paragraph 2, it will be necessary for me show the effect on the report of BDO failing to even contact me.  I will do this by addressing each of the three concerns of the Sub Committee in the order they appear at paragraph 2.  Consequently it will be necessary to show the effect on the report and its accuracy of the failure to seek the knowledge of the person responsible for most of the decision making in respect of the use of financial resources.

 

• There are a number of issues which arise from the failure of BDO to even attempt to interview me as part of their review, nor to give me the opportunity to respond to criticisms contained within the report.  Firstly, it is a well established point of lawful procedure that in certain types of investigations and inquiries certain points of procedure must be followed to ensure fairness and accuracy.  These points were further emphasised in the case of Maxwell v. DTI 1974 and the following excerpts from an article in ‘Practical Law Company’ in December 2008 explain these procedures.

 • Investigations and inquiries in context

 • Investigations and inquiries are an increasing feature of public life. They come in a variety of forms. Some have formal powers while others are carried out on an ad hoc, informal basis. Some are triggered by government policy while others are commissioned at the discretion of the government and/or public bodies.

 • Certain procedural and legal issues arise in all investigations and inquiries. It is important to get these right so that the investigative process runs smoothly, individuals are treated fairly& lawfully and the budget/timetable is maintained. 

 • This note sets out what these issues are. Organisations intending to commission an investigation or inquiry should seek professional advice and assistance at the outset.

An aspect of principle 2 above was that following the Salmon Report, letters were commonly issued to those who were participants in an inquiry where there was potential criticism that might be made of their conduct. These letters came to be known as “Salmon letters”.

In his subsequent report in to matters arising from the Matrix-Churchill affair, Lord Scott criticised aspects of the Salmon Principles as being more relevant to adversarial processes than an inquisitorial procedure. However, he took the process of warning those concerned of possible criticism (so they would have an opportunity to comment) further than the Salmon letter; rather, he copied adverse passages from his draft report to those concerned, so they had an opportunity to respond and seek to change his mind. This process is known as “Maxwellisation” and derives from practice in investigations under the Companies Act.

Both processes represent aspects of fairness and may be necessary, depending on the circumstances, for an inquiry conducted today.

For inquiries conducted under the Inquiries Act 2005, the Salmon letter procedure has been codified in to a process of “warning letters” (see section 13 of the Act). This provides that the chairman may not include any explicit or significant criticism of a person in a report unless he has sent a warning letter to a person who:

 • (a) He considers may be, or who has been, subject to criticism in the inquiry proceedings; or

 • (b) About whom criticism may be inferred from evidence that has been given during the inquiry proceedings; or

 • (c) Who may be subject to criticism in any report or interim report.

Section 14 of the Act creates a statutory duty of confidence between the recipient of such a letter, the inquiry team and the recipient’s legal representative. The duty persists until such time as the inquiry’s report is published or the chairman waives the duty.

The contents of warning letters under the Act are set out in section 15. They must:

 • (a) state what the criticism or proposed criticism is

 • (b) contain a statement of the facts that the chairman considers substantiate the criticism or proposed criticism

 • (c) refer to any evidence which supports those facts.
It has yet to be seen whether the statutory process of warning letters will help speed up inquiries that would previously have followed a Maxwellisation process by dispensing with it, or whether a chairman will consider that fairness requires a “Maxwell” process as well as warning letters under section 13 of the Act

Maxwell v DTI [1974] QB 523

 

• This is what I see as the first issue arising from the concerns and in particular the first concern.  The completion of a review of my decisions relating to the use of financial resources without even seeking an explanation from me as to why I made those decisions, makes it inevitable that the review will be unfair, slanted, un-objective, and lacking in credibility.  Such a review is unlikely to provide a true picture of the situation, and indeed, I would argue that there are so many factual inaccuracies and wrongful assumptions included in the report, that this is exactly what happened.  If I had been spoken to it is unlikely that the report would have come to the same conclusions as it did.  Whilst I fully appreciate the reluctance of the Sub Committee to re-examine the conclusions of the report, it is necessary for me to show how those conclusions would have been affected by the simple process of asking me why I took the decisions I did.  What I will submit is that there are so many of these conclusions which I can contradict with solid evidence, that I cannot possibly include them all.  Accordingly I will simply illustrate my point with a selected few of them, but I would emphasise there are many, many, more.

 

• Firstly, I would have pointed to the close links between Mr Kellett and Mr Gradwell, which BDO seem to have conveniently overlooked.  Both officers worked in the same region of the North West of England and know each other well.  This can hardly be said to be an independent appointment.

 

• One fundamental effect of the failure to even interview me appears at the very outset of the report and is crucial in the BDO conclusion that much of the spending was unnecessary.  This is in relation to the search operation at HDLG.  BDO quote a Met interim report as saying that the entry into HDLG was “unjustified” and the report makes light of the process which led to the search of HDLG.  However, BDO make no mention of the fact that a later report by Wiltshire Police endorsed the entry into HDLG and the important fact that it was the National Policing Improvement Agency who actually recommended the operation and who formulated the Search Strategy. (A copy of their Strategy is attached.)  BDO have completely missed this but would not have been allowed to if they had spoken to me.

 

• The report rightly states that there was no initial intention to excavate the building, but then states "for some reason this changed."  The reasons have been well documented, although again, BDO have ignored them.  I would have pointed them towards the reasons.  The BDO report states that where the dog barked, we dug.  It deliberately ignores the evidence of the Operation Rectangle Summary Report, (available on the SOJP website before Mr Warcup removed it) which describes all the technical and scientific aids and methods which were used to corroborate the reactions of the dogs.  Again, I would have insisted they read this document. The report also ignores the evidence available to us from builders who found bones they believed to be human and who were told to "let bygones be bygones."  It follows also, that BDO make no mention of the inconsistencies in the handling of the bones by the local Pathologist.  All in all, BDO seem to deliberately play down or ignore the evidence for the operation, something which I would have rectified if I had been spoken to.    Whilst not inviting the Sub Committee to rule on the merits of my arguments, the BDO conclusion that considerable elements of the investigation costs were therefore questionable seems highly debatable to say the least, and would have had to be at least re-assessed if they had been forced to rely on evidence other than a Met interim report which at best was one page of e mail and contained false dates.

 

• In talking about the initial fragment, JAR/6, BDO state that the item had not been lab tested or subjected to peer review.  This ignores the fact that the identification was made by a renowned and respected anthropologist.  It goes on to peddle the myth that a scientist from the Carbon Dating Lab in Oxford identified the item as wood or coconut.  This, as we know, is rubbish.  Firstly nobody at that lab was qualified to say what it was - their expertise is in dating, and they made a hash of that, and secondly, no one ever said what it was.  I have e mail evidence which shows them saying clearly that to be sure as to what it was, it would need to be examined by experts.  I also have e mail evidence which shows that collagen was found by them in the fragment.  We all know that this substance is found only in mammals and not in wood or coconut.  It is likely then, that if I had been given the opportunity to present such evidence to BDO, that their conclusions could not have been the same.  One has to ask how BDO missed such important evidence.  Could it be because they never spoke to me and no one else was interested in giving them the information?  Again, the Sub Committee does not have to reach a conclusion on which version is the truth.  It is surely obvious that the report could not have been fair, objective, or independent without the availability of the alternative explanations.

 

• The BDO report totally misunderstands and misrepresents the situation of the SOJP as it was then in relation to the management of its budget.  The report compares the management of the police budget unfavourably with UK forces and rather misleadingly equates (supposed) operational independence with the financial decision making ability of UK forces.  In reality, unlike UK forces, we did not have the ability to track our budgets as they do in the UK.  Where the UK forces had in house finance departments which reported to the Chief Officer, we had an ever diminishing number of Treasury personnel who nominally worked with us but reported to the Treasury.  We had to rely on them for monthly bulletins as to how we were doing.  These bulletins became a joke, so inaccurate were they, and we came to realise eventually that the inaccuracies were deliberate.  We monitored our own expenditure and towards the end of one year we knew we were well under-spent, with a surplus that we had been promised we could carry over to the next year.  However, the Treasury insisted we were slightly overspent.  We later found that we had been correct but our surplus had been passed on to other States departments which were heavily over-spent.  Wiser the following years we ignored the Centre’s protestations that we were over spent and indeed they were wrong and we came within budget.  This was the context that we found ourselves in at the beginning of the Abuse enquiry.  Graham Power continually pleaded for us to be given a budget to work to but was refused.  The instruction by Frank Walker to use whatever resources we needed was not misunderstood.  It was a clear direction.  BDO seem to infer that it was not really an instruction to use whatever we needed.  However, they have ignored the fact that when I did speak publicly about the need to be mindful of the costs of the enquiry, I received a stinging rebuke from Bill Ogley on behalf of Frank Walker in which he said “costs are irrelevant.  I have a copy of that e mail and if BDO had bothered to try to contact me I would have let them have it.  Far from being reckless with finance as BDO have reported, I was rebuked by Bill Ogley for even considering the need to be careful with money.  I have a copy of his e mail which I will happily supply to the Sub Committee which shows him admonishing me and telling me that “cost is irrelevant.”

 

• The report criticises the use of Mr Grimes and his dogs.  It claims that there were other dog handlers who could have carried out the work.  This is not so.  At that time these were the only dogs trained in this particular line of work available to us, and they were recommended to us by the National Policing Improvement Agency.  It is interesting to note, that whilst employed with us, Mr Grimes was also given time to go and assist two other UK forces.  I should also point out that he is now employed full time by the FBI and that previous to coming to Jersey he had been used frequently by them.  BDO claim they were unable to discover who had recommended Mr Grime.  If they had tried hard enough they would have found that the NPIA brought him to that first meeting in Oxford where the strategy was discussed and approved by all there.

 

• BDO are also critical of the fact that the L’Horizon hotel was used for Mr Grimes and the archaeologists and anthropologists whilst they were in Jersey.  What BDO do not mention was that the cost of the rooms was the equivalent of a B&B establishment because of the favourable rates.  These were professional people who were being asked to work long hours away from home.  My PA who did most of the hunting for accommodation did a superb job in obtaining these rooms at the rate she did.  Staff could not have been accommodated any less expensively. Indeed, although I can find no mention of it in any comment by politicians, Gradwell, Warcup, or SAV, the report does say that the use of all other hotels and accommodation was appropriate.  What is seems to miss is the fact that L’Horizon cost no more than the other hotels mentioned.

 

• The BDO report criticises visits to London by me and staff, and the use of hospitality whilst on these visits.  It states it can find no good reason for the visits, and goes on to criticise the restaurants which were used, and the way bills were split between officers which it claims, were an attempt to hide the cost.  Here again, BDO would have benefited from even a conversation with me over the telephone.  Instead it saw fit to criticise my actions without even the first idea of why we did what we did.  In the following paragraphs I lay out the details which I would have given them if they had bothered to ask.  As before, it is not necessary for the Sub Committee to comment on the veracity of the evidence, although I emphasise it is all verifiable, but merely to note that alternative evidence was available but not even sought by BDO.

 

• Firstly, not only myself, but ACPO were worried about the security of our offices at the Police HQ.  ACPO were also concerned about the security of our electronic systems.  It was decided that we would seek the advice of the team dealing with such matters at New Scotland Yard.  We made our first visit there and discussed the arrangements which we had in place and which we should be thinking of enhancing.  Much useful information was obtained, and indeed, several members of that unit visited Jersey and carried out an inspection of our offices and made useful recommendations.  There are a number of other points to be made which BDO failed to recognise but which I would have enlightened them on if they had bothered to contact me.  It is true, as they claim, that these meetings rarely lasted longer than an hour or ninety minutes.  However, I was not usually in London for these meetings alone.  I combined them with other meetings and tasks to be carried out, some of them directly connected to Rectangle and some either indirectly or not connected.  Furthermore, even in the short duration of the meetings valuable information was gleaned and later acted on.  From this meeting also arose the possibility of us borrowing a brand new sifting machine for use at HDLG which considerably speeded up and made more effective the process of searching for evidence in the debris from the home.  We had this machine for several months and paid nothing for it but the cost of transporting it.  Using it saved many thousands of pounds.  BDO do get it correct when they say that my preference would have been to alternate the meetings between London and Jersey but as the Met would have had to charge for their services if they went to Jersey, it was decided to hold the meetings in London top reduce our costs.

 

• BDO seek in this report to infer some wrongdoing in respect of the hospitality afforded to UK officers.  It should be pointed out right away, that in a written communication, Steven Austen Vaughtier laid out the amount of money allocated to this investigation for hospitality.  I was not using money diverted from operational costs, this was money allocated by the States for the use in supplying hospitality.  BDO seem to infer that it was unusual.  This is not so.  Every States department has hospitality budgets and in many restaurants and bars in Jersey this facility is used regularly.  One local taxi driver commented to me that if it wasn’t for the hospitality budgets of politicians and their departments several restaurants would have long closed.   It is necessary when operating in an isolated environment like Jersey that networking and hospitality facilities are used.  I am quite happy to have my hospitality expenses measured against the services and other benefits that I brought in compared with a similar exercise for any other states department.  As a result of contacts made I was able to save the SOJP many thousands of pounds.  This included but did not stop at secondments, such as the months long secondment to the Met Homicide Teams for a senior detective, a lengthy secondment to a busy west end of London Division for a senior uniform officer during which he gained valuable experience, short notice training for a number of Tactical Firearms Officers when due to accidents we had none, from another UK force, training in Northern Ireland, free of charge, for our probationer officers, as well as validation for our own training procedures, as well as many, many more.

 

• BDO criticise the restaurants which we used and name two of them.  One of them, the “Bombay Brassiere”, is I think, a restaurant in Kensington which was near to a hotel we used.  I think we went there once.  I am not sure what they were trying to infer.  The second restaurant they name is “Shepherds” in London.  The report goes to great lengths to mention that it was owned by Sir Michael Caine.  I think it is correct that it was at one time part owned by him.  This is obviously an attempt to give the impression of five star luxury.  However, as the Scotland Yard team pointed out, this is a restaurant used mainly by journalists, MPs, and senior police officers, (including members of HMIC) many of whom are on business dinners.  Scotland Yard provided a menu to Wiltshire Police, although it never seems to have got a mention in that report and I notice that BDO did not mention it either.  The menu shows good reasonably priced meals at the cost, when we used it, of £32 for three courses and coffee.  Hardly Hollywood style living.  Frequently when using it we would encounter other police officers from various forces and HMIC.  This is a far cry from the movie star lifestyle painted by BDO and the JEP.  When the truth was available one has to ask why they chose to go down this road, and why no attempt was made to speak to me, nor indeed, to even use the evidence that Scotland Yard had given them.

 

• BDO also sought to infer some form of malpractice in the way in which bills were split.  Bills were split to begin with, because invariably officers who were being met with, paid for some drinks for those present themselves.  As for why the bill was sometimes split between two Jersey officers, the truth is rather less exciting and easily verifiable.  Indeed, once again, if BDO had bothered to check with me I would have enlightened them.

 

• On a number of occasions myself and other colleagues had the embarrassment of having our Jersey Purchase cards refused because the States had been, for whatever reason, late in paying the account, leaving cards near their limit.  I remember one occasion in London having to use my own card on arrival at a hotel and then having to ring Jersey to sort the matter out.  Subsequently, when three or four of us where meeting with a number of other UK officers and having to pay the resulting bill, we split the cost to try and avoid the situation as described happening again.  BDO didn’t bother to ask for a reason.  They have simply tried to paint a black picture.  The report quotes a £4,860 bill on my purchase card for eight months of the investigation.  This works out at about £608 per month, well below what my hospitality budget actually was.  BDO compare my cost with a small force in Yorkshire.  What the basis is for comparing an island force off France having to obtain services and assistance in the middle of a huge investigation with a small force in rural England is, I have absolutely no idea.  However, according to BDO even the Deputy chief constable there spent over £3,000 and he had no Operation Rectangle and presumably did not need to leave GB or cross the Channel to meet with contacts.

 

• There are of course, two other concerns of the Sub Committee.  The first of these is the matter of my confidential witness statement made to Wiltshire Police.  This statement was made as part of the discipline investigation into Graham Power QPM.  It was made under condition that it was used for no other purpose.  It contained sensitive details as well as names of victims and suspects.  I was assured by Wiltshire Police that no one would be given a copy of it, and indeed, that it was even exempt from Freedom of Information Laws in the UK.  It formed part of a report by Wiltshire Police that was in itself so confidential that Wiltshire issued the following warning.

 

• 1. Paragraph 1.2 of the discipline code (for Chief Officers of the States of Jersey Police) requires that all parties involved in the operation of this code will maintain confidentiality while proceedings are being progressed. The outcome of any particular case arising under the code will not, as a general rule, be publicised, but it is accepted that following the outcome of a particular case, the Home Affairs Minister and/or the States Employment Board and /or the Chief Officer, might decide that public disclosure is appropriate.

2. This Report contains personal data within the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998, and Wiltshire Police would breach the first data protection principle if it were to disclose that information. Hence, the information is exempt under s.40(2) Freedom of Information Act 2000

3. This Report contains information that has been, and continues to be, held by Wiltshire Police for the purposes of an investigation which it has a duty to conduct and which ought not to be disclosed (under s.30 Freedom of Information Act 2000).

4. An obligation of confidence upon Wiltshire Police arises from the duty outlined at 1. Above, and disclosure of information would be likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and Jersey. Information, therefore, ought not to be disclosed (under s.27 Freedom of Information Act 


 • There is absolutely no condition under which my statement should have been made available to a firm of accountants who are not security vetted in any fashion in relation to such documents, and who had no connection with the discipline investigation for which it was provided.  I gave no such authority for it to be used, and Wiltshire Police have denied ever providing the statement to BDO.  If BDO had bothered to interview me I would have pointed all of this out to them.

 

• The final concern was the leaking of the BDO report shortly after it was commissioned.  There is not much I can add to what is known.  David Rose is a journalist with a public track record of supporting convicted paedophiles and trashing police investigations of historical child abuse.  He is the author and co-author of several books and documents in which it is claimed that allegations of historic abuse are either as a result of conspiracies between greedy victims fabricating stories and police willingly acquiescing, or as a result of ‘false recall syndrome.’  He has given evidence to Parliamentary Select Committees on behalf of Frank Beck, the Leicestershire Care Home Rapist, and the North Wales Care Home abusers, all of whom he claims were victims of miscarriages of justice.  This is despite a three year public inquiry in North Wales which cost millions and totally vindicated police and victims.  This was not the first time of course that Mr Rose featured in the Jersey investigation.  He was leaked material previously, and in a tape recorded conversation told Graham Power that he had been leaked confidential material by Senator James Perchard.  Rose denied the conversation despite the recording, and Perchard denied leaking to him.  It seems to me, to reflect rather badly on the so called objective and independent nature of this report that a journalist with a publicly proven record of supporting convicted child abusers should have more access to the report and through his police contacts, to be able to influence it more that the people making the decisions which were being reviewed.

 

• In making this submission I have had to contradict a number of the findings of the report.  I do this in the full recognition that it is not the Sub Committee’s task to in any way re-assess the findings of the report.  I do it in order to show that a substantial body of alternative evidence was easily and readily available which may have given a totally different perspective on events.  This evidence was ignored and not even sought, despite the fact that much of it came from the person making the decisions which were being reviewed and subsequently criticised.  Such criticism without even an attempt to seek an alternative view cannot be seen as being fair, objective or independent.



Leonard Harper

25th June 2011




1st July 2011



Education and Home Affairs Sub Panel


Review issues surrounding the BDO Alto report on Financial 


Management of Operation Rectangle



The Education and Home Affairs Panel Sub Panel will hold its first public hearing for this review with the former Senior Investigating Officer, Mr. Leonard Harper, on Monday 4th July commencing at 11am in the HV Benest Room, Morier House. 


The hearing will talk place through a conference call link.


Mr. Harper has provided a written submission to the Sub Panel which is available on the Scrutiny website at  HYPERLINK "http://www.scrutiny.gov.je/submissions.asp?reviewid=194" http://www.scrutiny.gov.je/submissions.asp?reviewid=194 


Further hearings will be held on Friday 15th July. Details of witnesses will be announced in due course


Ends


Notes to editors:

The following terms of reference have been agreed for this review

To examine the instructions under which BDO Alto was engaged to review the financial management of Operation Rectangle and their methods for gathering evidence for this review;

To clarify the connection between the BDO Alto review and the review on the same matter separately commissioned by the Acting Chief Officer of Police;

To identify the reasons why the Senior Investigating Officer for Operation Rectangle was not interviewed by BDO Alto and was not given the opportunity to respond to the report’s findings;

To clarify the liaison between BDO Alto and the Wiltshire Police, in particular the references in the BDO Alto report to the Senior Investigating Officer’s statements to Wiltshire Police;

To investigate how details of the review into the financial management of Operation Rectangle came to be published in a national newspaper in October 2009; and

To consider the implications of the Sub Panel’s findings.


The BDO Alto report is available on the States website  HYPERLINK "http://www.gov.je/Government/Departments/HomeAffairs/Pages/Reports.aspx?ReportYear=2010" http://www.gov.je/Government/Departments/HomeAffairs/Pages/Reports.aspx?ReportYear=2010


Sub Panel Membership Deputy T Pitman (Chairman), Deputy R Le Hérissier Deputy M Tadier, and Deputy D. Wimberley

For further information on this review, please contact:

Mike Haden, Scrutiny Officer   Tel 441076 or email  HYPERLINK "mailto:m.haden@gov.je" m.haden@gov.je   

For Media Interviews - Deputy T Pitman - Lead member  Tel 07797 824243 or email  HYPERLINK "mailto:t.pitman@gov.je" t.pitman@gov.je 


 

Review issues surrounding the BDO Alto report on 

Financial Management of Operation Rectangle 

 

The Chairmen’s Committee met yesterday to consider the complaints regarding a new review 

to be undertaken by the Education and Home Affairs Sub Panel on issues surrounding the 

report entitled “Operation Rectangle”: Review of the Efficient and Effective Review of 

Resources.” 

 

The Chairmen’s Committee considered the issues and discussed them with the Chairman of 

the main Panel and the Chairman of the Sub Panel. 

 

The Chairman of the Sub Panel and the Chairman of the main Panel were quite clear that the 

review, which had arisen from a public concern that details of the BDO Alto report appeared to 

have been discussed with a journalist at an early stage of the review and that a possible key 

witness had not been interviewed, would be tightly focussed on the stated terms of reference. 

Both the Chairmen of the Sub Panel and main Panel gave undertakings that a number of 

technical details would be investigated and that there would be no further comments by 

members of the Sub Panel on their blogs on issues connected with the review until the review 

was completed.   

 

It was also noted that the Sub Panel included States Members with differing backgrounds in 

order to give balance to the considerations. In participating in Scrutiny Reviews members 

commit to laying aside preconceptions and looking at evidence in an objective fashion. 

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee withdrew from the meeting as he expressed 

a conflict in the matter. 

 

The Chairman, Senator Sarah Ferguson, commented that: 

“There will be occasions when a Scrutiny Review will provide difficulties for Ministers. It is the 

job of all Scrutiny members, led by the Chairmens’ Committee, to ensure that proceedings are 

fair and objective.”   

 

She added: “This review is tightly focussed and I have no reason to doubt the undertakings 

given that it will remain so. “ 


The BDO Alto report is available on the States website 

http://www.gov.je/Government/Departments/HomeAffairs/Pages/Reports.aspx?ReportYear=2010 

 

Sub Panel Membership Deputy T Pitman (Chairman), Deputy R Le Hérissier Deputy M Tadier, 

and Deputy D. Wimberley 

For further information on this review, please contact: 

Mike Haden, Scrutiny Officer   Tel 441076 or email m.haden@gov.je    

For Media Interviews - Deputy T Pitman - Lead member  Tel 07797 824243 or email 

t.pitman@gov.je  




 BDO Alto 16 




The search for answers




The 1st meeting of the Scrutiny Sub Panel




Today was the first time that one of the main police officers involved in Operation Rectangle has been able to give evidence to a public hearing.  Former SIO Lenny Harper gave evidence via a conference call which lasted for a good hour and a half . The room was packed with members of the public and the local main stream media. You could have cut the atmosphere with a knife there was complete and utter silence during the whole hearing. I must praise the Scrutiny Sub Panel, they kept the questioning tight and to the point.  Very rarely did they stray from the TOR's  .When you think of how big the whole Child Abuse Scandal is this was no mean feat. I have had the opportunity  of listening back to the Video & Audio of the hearing.



We must not get distracted by what is put out by the MSM. They have made their bed concerning the HCAE and must now lie in it. How can they now go against the stuff they have been peddling for the last 3 years? it wont happen.



The evidence is what counts - today there was loads of it



Mr Harper talked a lot about the make up of the police force concerning financial matters and other issues. I don't want to quote anything from todays hearing until the transcripts are up online. The reason for this is simple,  its very easy to misquote someone. But, having said that, one quote did catch my attention. The chairman of the Sub Panel Deputy Pitman said that he and his Scrutiny Officer had had a meeting with BDO Alto.  When asked why they hadn't contacted Lenny Harper  BDO had replied that they had wanted to but had been blocked by the former Acting Police Chief David Warcup. 




As you can imagine that raises a whole host of other serious issues




The BDO report was commissioned by the Home Affairs Minister and the Accounting Officer with agreed terms of reference (page 4 bdo)




Why is David Warcup telling BDO what they can or cant do?




There seems to be a serious issue of who was in control of this report. Is it David Warcup? is it the Home Affairs Minister? Is it the Accounting Officer? On page 4 of the report it states: 



"BDO has work alongside Mr Michael Kellett in performing this Review. Mr Kellett is a former SIO serving in the UK. He has been separately engaged by the Acting Chief Officer (David Warcup), SOJP, however this Report represents the joint findings of Mr Kellett and BDO. There is more that can be found on page 4"



Now remember what David Rose said:


Dave Warcup, Jersey's acting chief police officer, told The Mail on Sunday that he had appointed an independent team of auditors to examine Harper's spending. It includes two forensic accountants and a police expert in seizing criminals' assets.

The team's interim report, seen by this newspaper, reveals that Grime was paid £750 a day for the first seven days he spent on the island and £650 a day for the following 136 days.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1217863/Bungled-Jersey-child-abuse-probe-branded-20million-shambles.html#ixzz1RAF41VDO




So far we have the Home Affairs Minister telling us that he believes that Mick Gradwell leaked the BDO Draft Report to David Rose  



We have BDO telling us that David Warcup blocked them from interviewing Lenny Harper 



Who gave BDO Lenny Harpers confidential Wiltshire Statement?



It is now up to the Home Affairs Minister and BDO to clear up all the serious issues relating to their report



Rico Sorda


Team Voice


Graham Power


"At some stage in these discussions, prominence was given to aspects of the financial management of the abuse enquiry, and attention shifted away from the systematic abuse of vulnerable children in States establishments, and towards detailed examination of bills in a London restaurant.   This agenda-shift appeared to be well supported by Jersey Government representatives and significant sections of the Jersey media.   I do not know if this development was a consequence of deliberate “spin” on behalf of the Jersey Authorities and their media allies, but such an action would be entirely consistent with the earlier leak of aspects of the BDO Alto report to the media which the Panel is now examining.   Whatever the motive, the consequence of the agenda-shift was once again to encourage public debate to focus on the abuse enquiry, and away from the actual abuse."





BDO ALTO 17




JERSEY BLOGGERS LEADING THE WAY 




We have managed to do in 2 months what BDO Alto failed to do in 1 whole year




We have allowed the former Chief of Police Graham Power and his Senior Investigating Officer of Operation Rectangle Lenny Harper to have their say concerning the findings contained in the BDO Alto Report into finances and expenses of Operation Rectangle 




What we must remember is that the Scrutiny Panel are investigating how this Report was compiled and the very serious leaks not what is contained in the Report. 



The TOR's


The following terms of reference have been agreed for this review


To examine the instructions under which BDO Alto was engaged to review the financial management of Operation Rectangle and their methods for gathering evidence for this review;


To clarify the connection between the BDO Alto review and the review on the same matter separately commissioned by the Acting Chief Officer of Police;


To identify the reasons why the Senior Investigating Officer for Operation Rectangle was not interviewed by BDO Alto and was not given the opportunity to respond to the report’s findings;


To clarify the liaison between BDO Alto and the Wiltshire Police, in particular the references in the BDO Alto report to the Senior Investigating Officer’s statements to Wiltshire Police;


To investigate how details of the review into the financial management of Operation Rectangle came to be published in a national newspaper in October 2009; and To consider the implications of the Sub Panel’s findings.



Why do BDO Alto say on page 6 of their report; 



"As previously reported , we have not had an opportunity to discuss  the content of this Report with the ex-SIO, Mr Lenny Harper"




Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Right.  Obviously we have not had a formal interview with BDO yet but myself and our Scrutiny Officer did meet with BDO a couple of days ago and it was interesting that they actually state that they did request to be able to interview you but this was blocked, allegedly by the Acting Chief Officer at the time, which would have been [the Acting Chief Officer].  Have you got any thoughts on that?  Were you aware of that?




Did  BDO question this rather strange move by ACO Warcup?  Why was Warcup calling the shots wasn't this report Commissioned by the Minister for Home Affairs and the Home Affairs accounting officer. (page 4-bdo). Did BDO contact Home Affairs and ask them if they would give them permission to contact Lenny Harper?



Who handed BDO Lenny Harpers confidential Wiltshire Statement?



Who  brought in   Mike Kellett  to help BDO compile their Report?



Did Mike Kellett  know David Warcup or Mike Gradwell before being engaged?



When did Mike Kellett  start and finish his work with BDO?



Did he know what TOR's he was working to -  if he was done before September 29th 2009?



We are Keeping the readers up to date. The below submissions can be found on the Home Affairs Scrutiny web page


http://www.scrutiny.gov.je/review.asp?reviewid=194



Truth, Honesty and Integrity



Rico Sorda 


Team Voice




STATES OF JERSEY


Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel

Issues surrounding of the Review of Financial Management of Operation Rectangle


MONDAY, 4th JULY 2011


Note: The witness has not yet had the opportunity to correct any textual inaccuracies


Panel:

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier (Chairman)

Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade

Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour


Witness:

Mr. L. Harper


Also present:

Mr. M. Haden (Scrutiny Officer)


[11:03]


Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier (Chairman):

Well, can I welcome everyone, all the members of the public and the media; credited media, unaccredited media.  We will be going live on the audit pretty soon.  What I do want to point out to members is that we cannot have any interruptions from the public or from the media while we are talking to Mr. Harper.  There has been a request if it is allowed to interview afterwards, so I will put that to him.  The decision is up to him.  We are happy for him to do that so if you could put any, we could get on and run this quickly and smoothly as possible so no interruptions from anyone.


Male Speaker:

What about after?  Any comment after when you are finished?


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

The media can if Mr. Harper is willing to speak to them but it is not an exchange of views.  If you want to put anything to the panel that is fine.  Like I say, we are here for the purpose of Mr. Harper and see what he has got to say, so we ask everyone to bear that in mind.


Male Speaker:

Could I just say before you start I do not think members of the public want to be filmed by the media.  


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Are you going to focus on us?  Please, thank you.


Mr. M. Haden (Scrutiny Officer):

Hello, Mr. Harper.


Mr. L. Harper:

Yes.


Mr. M. Haden:

Hello, the Education Scrutiny Panel is now set here ready for you.  I will hand you over to the Chairman, Deputy Pitman.


Mr. L. Harper:

Okay, thank you.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Hello, Mr. Harper.


Mr. L. Harper:

Good morning.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

It is a bit of a strange situation, it is almost like a séance; we cannot see you and you cannot see us but we will all introduce ourselves.  We have quite a number of members of the public here as well and the media.  There are a few things I have to put to you; you have been sent the oath to do with the hearing, is that correct, you have seen it?


Mr. L. Harper:

Yes.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Right, do you want me to read that to you or are you quite happy?  The basis of it is that you do not tell us anything that you know not to be true.


Mr. L. Harper:

Yes, I understand that.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Okay.  The other point, which I am sure you are aware but I do have to say it to the public, obviously this sub-panel, it is not here to re-investigate the whole Haut de la Garenne investigation.  You are aware of that and it is quite a tight scrutiny review.


Mr. L. Harper:

Yes, I am.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Okay.  We will introduce ourselves in due course.  One other thing, there has been a request from citizens’ media actually; would you be willing to stay on the line for the media to ask any questions afterwards or not, the choice is yours?


Mr. L. Harper:

Yes, I will.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Okay.


Mr. L. Harper:

Yes.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Right, with that I will introduce myself and the panel and I will say, because you cannot see us every time a member comes in we will introduce ourselves again so you just do know who is speaking to you.


Mr. L. Harper:

Okay.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I am Deputy Trevor Pitman.  I am chairman of this sub-panel which is a sub-panel of the Education, Sport, Culture and Home Affairs Panel.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour:

Hello, Mr. Harper.  Roy Le Hérissier, Deputy of St. Saviour, member of the panel.


Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary:

Hello, Mr. Harper.  I am Daniel Wimberley, Deputy of St. Mary, offered myself on to the panel.


Deputy M. Tadier of St. Brelade:

Good morning, Montfort Tadier.  I am a Deputy of St. Brelade.  I am a member of the panel.


Mr. L. Harper:

Good morning.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Okay, Mr. Harper, the first thing I would like to ask you, for the record, can you confirm that you were not invited or even approached by BDO to participate in this report?


Mr. L. Harper:

Yes, I can confirm that.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

A difficult question possibly but what are your feelings on the motivation perhaps of why you were not asked to participate?


Mr. L. Harper:

Well, I mean you all understand that this is probably pure speculation on my part but my view on it is that if I had been invited to comment or answer questions from BDO I would have given a contradictory explanation and answer to practically every one of the conclusions which criticised me in the review.  Now, the only conclusion I can come to as to why I was not asked to give those contradictory explanations was that either because they had been told to or they were under pressure not to speak to me and not to receive and consider the alternative explanations to the conclusions that they came to in their report.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Right.  Obviously we have not had a formal interview with BDO yet but myself and our Scrutiny Officer did meet with BDO a couple of days ago and it was interesting that they actually state that they did request to be able to interview you but this was blocked, allegedly by the Acting Chief Officer at the time, which would have been [the Acting Chief Officer].  Have you got any thoughts on that?  Were you aware of that?


Mr. L. Harper:

I was not aware of that because I emailed the Minister for Home Affairs some weeks ago and asked him why BDO has not interviewed me; asked him whose instructions the BDO it was that I should not be interviewed and asked if it was him or someone else.  [the Minister] replied to me and said that he had had nothing whatsoever to do with the BDO terms of reference and that he had stayed independent but did not know.  So I emailed him back and said to him: “Well, look, you must have delegated this responsibility to someone.  Somebody has told BDO, if they did not take their own decisions, somebody has told BDO not to interview me.  Can you tell me who you delegated the making of the terms of reference to?”  [The Minister] emailed me back very quickly and said: “I think that possibly I did have something to do with the makeup of the terms of reference but I am not absolutely certain.  I will check when I come back from holiday and I will get back to you.”  Now, to date I have not heard anything from [the Minister].  My assumption was, when I saw some of the comments attributed to [Acting Chief Officer], that he had commissioned this report, then I felt that it must have been either [the Minister] or [Acting Chief Officer] that had told BDO not to approach me but I did not know that BDO had said that it was in fact [Acting Chief Officer].


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Okay.


Deputy M. Tadier:

Can I just jump in?  Deputy Tadier here.  The first question is a fairly simple one; if you had been invited to give evidence or to be consulted would you have taken up that opportunity?


Mr. L. Harper:

Yes, I would, absolutely.


Deputy M. Tadier:

Okay.  I think the second question is you said that they were under pressure not to talk to you; where did that pressure come from, in your opinion, or from whom?


Mr. L. Harper:

Well, it would have come from whoever it was that commissioned the report and gave them the terms of reference.  As I said, I believed that it was either [the Minister] or [the Acting Chief Officer].  [The Minister] totally denied having anything to do with it at the outset, so as my feelings then were that it must have been [the Acting Chief Officer].  But when [the Minister] then emailed back to me with his change of opinion and said that he might have had ... I think the words that he used were: “I probably might have had something to do with the setting up of the terms of reference” then, again, that put the ball back to somewhere between [the Acting Chief Officer] and [the Minister].  So, my view was that the pressure on BDO, if indeed they had not taken the decision themselves, I could not see why they would take the decision themselves not to interview me but it must have been coming either from the senior officer within the States of Jersey Police or indeed [the Minister].


Deputy M. Tadier:

Perhaps the last question for now from me, would there have been anything in the terms of reference as they are drafted which would have precluded BDO from approaching you?


Mr. L. Harper:

I do not think I have actually seen the terms of reference so I cannot answer that unfortunately.


Deputy M. Tadier:

I think that what I am trying to get to the underlying question is whether BDO was specifically told not to interview you or whether they simply were not told or they were not encouraged to interview you; that is perhaps a difference there?


Mr. L. Harper:

Well, I think if they were looking to do a professional job then I think that they would have had to have been told specifically not to interview me and otherwise I think that they would have been looking to seek an explanation for some of the things that were in their report, and my belief was that they were specifically told not to interview me.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Mr. Harper, Deputy Pitman again.  Before I come to my other colleagues one question arises from what Deputy Tadier has asked you, could you just clarify for me; you were by then an ordinary member of the public, what authority would the police have had to stop you being interviewed, if any, that you are aware of?


Mr. L. Harper:

There was absolutely no authority whatsoever and if an instruction was given to BDO not to interview me I would see that as a deliberate attempt to suppress the truth and another attempt to stop the evidence which supported the evidence of the abuse victims from being given a proper airing.  I do not think there was any lawful reason or any lawful authority indeed why BDO should have been told not to interview me.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Okay, thank you.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Mr. Harper, Roy Le Hérissier here.  From your contacts there still may have been in the States of Jersey Police, did any of them inform you that the review was indeed under way?


Mr. L. Harper:

No, nobody informed me that BDO were carrying out a report.  I knew that Wiltshire were carrying out a discipline inquiry into [then Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police]’s suspension and the circumstances around that.  I picked up somewhere along the line that there had been criticism of the financial management of the investigation but at no time was I ever told by anybody, States of Jersey Police or anybody else, that BDO or any firm of auditors were carrying out an investigation into the financial management of the inquiry.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Okay, thank you.  You said you picked it up somewhere along the line.  Roy Le Hérissier again, Mr. Harper.  Can you tell us how you picked it up?


Mr. L. Harper:

Yes, no, it was obviously on the internet somewhere and it was through media coverage that there had been criticism.  Now, I did not know where that criticism was coming from.


[11:15]


I did not know what it had been based on and I picked it up in either one of the blogs or in some sort of newspaper coverage.  I am not absolutely certain at this stage.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Okay, thank you.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

Yes, Mr. Harper, it is Deputy Wimberley.  Just to put it in context, this fact that you were not approached, could you give us maybe comparable cases to this where an investigation is under way, either in Jersey or elsewhere in your previous experience and how that was handled in terms of, if you like, the main witness not being approached?


Mr. L. Harper:

Well, the one that I know of best, which is probably the best known publicly, was the case of the Department of Trade and Industry v Maxwell where an investigation was carried out into his dealings and he was the subject of serious criticism in that, and the High Court ruled, and my memory is not 100 per cent on it ... I was able to put it in the written submission but the High Court in London were very critical and stated that in any sort of investigation such as this where someone is to be criticised that they should be (a) been made aware of the criticisms, be interviewed and be given an opportunity to comment on those criticisms and to present any evidence that he had got, now this is a clear breach of that.  This covered inquiries, according to the High Court, which were being carried out on behalf of Government or on behalf of public bodies and my view is, is that this was a clear breach of those principles, as well as a clear breach of the codes of conduct laid down by the accountancy regulation body, which states also that all reports being carried out by companies of accountants must be seen to be fair and objective and to take all points of view into consideration.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

Yes, on that last point, just sort of to take that to its end now, are you doing anything about that?  I think you mentioned something about that, taking action.


Mr. L. Harper:

Yes, indeed.  I mean I complained to the regulatory body and they came back and despite the fact that their own codes of practice state that they will investigate cases where firms of accountants do not comply with their codes of practice, they felt that although I had made allegations against BDO, that they had failed to meet with me, they did not think that I had proved it beyond all reasonable doubt.  I went back to them again and said: “Look, it is not for me to prove beyond reasonable doubt.  I have given you the evidence.  You are the one who is supposed to investigate it” but they came back then and told me they did not think it was within their remit.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

Okay.  Yes, I want to take you back to the terms of reference, which you said you were not familiar with.  If I can just read them out and then maybe you would like to comment on the fact that you were not approached: “The terms of reference for this review is to examine and consider the following, in respect of the H.C.A.E. (Historical Child Abuse Enquiry) investigation and there are 3 points: the first is the cost associated with personnel to include overtime costs as well as accommodation and travel and subsistence; the costs associated with all external suppliers and services and the internal governance arrangements that existed within the States of Jersey Police to ensure effective management control and efficient use of resources.”  Now, those are quite clear; they are not terms of reference to say find out who done it, they are terms of reference to say we want to know what happened with these costs.  So, would you like to comment on the fact that you then were not asked to comment on the information they had gathered?


Mr. L. Harper:

Yes, yes, I mean I think it is absolutely bizarre that when they are given terms of reference to find out matters such as this that they do not even contact the person who is probably responsible for making the vast majority of those decisions, and I made most of the decisions in respect of the financial cost of the Haut de la Garenne investigation and some of them were quite large expenditure items like, for instance, the new incident room, which is probably the single most expensive item during the whole of the inquiry.  Now, if they had bothered to come and ask me I would have told them how we went through the political procedures for that and got approval the whole way and, in actual fact, it was a member of the States department which did all the work and which carried it through and got the approval for the finance.  Now, I was not even asked about that and how you can come to conclusions and decisions about the spending of an inquiry when you do not even ask the person who made most of the decisions, I just find it rather bizarre.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

Thank you.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Yes, Mr. Harper, Roy Le Hérissier again.  Can I follow that up; giving, shall we say, the benefit of the doubt to the arguments that have been put forward, who else do you think they should have gone to or could they have gone to other people and said: “Well, these are the people who made the decisions and Mr. Harper was very involved with the operational side”?  Who were the people, alongside yourself, who were taking the key financial decisions as this inquiry carried on?


Mr. L. Harper:

Well, to be perfectly honest I took practically all of the key financial decisions.  The other person that they could have spoken to, because I was talking to him on a daily basis and who was aware of all of the expenditure, was [then Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police].  Now, I cannot be 100 per cent certain but I am pretty sure that they did not contact [then Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police] either.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

No, I think you are right there.  But, Mr. Harper, in terms of Home Affairs, who were the key people that you went to who were giving you overall direction and guidance and so forth in the financial sphere?


Mr. L. Harper:

Well, the truth of the matter is that I received very little guidance in respect of the financial affairs.  When I did attend meetings it was with [the Chief Officer, Home Affairs], and the head of Finance; I am not 100 per cent sure about the surname, but I attended a number of meetings.  But that was mainly to do with questions that were being asked of [the Chief Officer, Home Affairs] about specific things, for instance, the cost of the accommodation for visiting officers and the notorious Australian trip.  In respect of the large items such as the new incident room, and I forget the exact cost of that but as you can imagine it was pretty hefty, that was done in a carefully audited written procedure which went through, I think, [    ] who was the property representative for the States who worked alongside us and he took it through [the Chief Officer, Home Affairs] and then through Home Affairs and onwards to get approval for that.  So, the advice in respect of spending on a day-to-day basis on staff and everything else were all my decisions.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Okay, thank you.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Mr. Harper, Deputy Pitman again.  To follow on from Deputy Le Hérissier, you stated in your submission that the report totally misunderstands and represents a situation for the States of Jersey Police, as it was at the time, in relation to the management of the budget.  Could you clarify the statement, and you seem to have stated or given the impression that [then Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police], for instance, was requesting a budget but this was never given; it almost seems like a possible dereliction of someone taking control?  Could you outline that and give us your thoughts?


Mr. L. Harper:

Yes, absolutely.  From absolutely day one [then Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police] was pleading for a budget for us to work to but we kept getting told: “Look, you spend what you feel is operationally necessary, we will sort it out later.”  Now, I am not speaking for [then Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police] because I already said that he was almost, on a daily basis, pleading for a budget but I was very mindful of the huge cost to this inquiry and we took extraordinary steps in respect of trying to get what services we could at either reduced or no cost.  But also when interviewed publicly in the media and I mentioned costs I was immediately slapped down by [Chief Executive, States of Jersey] in an email, who told me in no uncertain terms that I was letting the side down by even suggesting that cost was an issue and by telling me, and I quote: “Cost is irrelevant.”  So, we were trying to get a budget from day one but we never, ever had a budget that we were to work to.  What we had to work to was to try and do everything and to get all our services at the most cost effective rate that we could.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Even accepting that, Mr. Harper, obviously as a senior officer being in control of an investigation, you fully accept that it was down to yourself to really maintain as tight control as you could.  Do you feel that perhaps you were not given perhaps the supervision that you should have had or the input to assist you in that from Home Affairs?


Mr. L. Harper:

Well, we were not given ... we never, ever had, even with the investigation, we were never able to, as other police forces were able to in the U.K. (United Kingdom), sit down and say: “This is what we have to spend and this is what we are doing and we will do this and we will carry this forward to next year”.  Now, in my written submission I described a situation where we eventually had to monitor our own expenditure because what we did was we got a monthly report from the Treasury but it was invariably so inaccurate that it became something of a joke with ourselves and we eventually realised that some of the inaccuracies were deliberate.  One year in particular we got caught out where we thought that we were well in credit and we were being told that no, we were in fact slightly overspent but then we realised the next year that we had in fact been correct and that our underspend had been given to other departments in the Home Affairs; I think most notably the prison.  Now, this went on for several years and we eventually, as I say, had to try and monitor our own expenditure but because everything was going through the Treasury it was not easy.  We had Treasury employees working with us in the office; now, when I first went to Jersey I think we had 4.  By the time the investigation went into the incident room we did not have any; we had one part-time person who came up from the Treasury a couple of days a week, everything had been taken down and centralised there.  So, no, I do not think we got the assistance in that respect that we needed and, as I say, as the senior investigating officer, I had to work on the basis that we tried to do everything as cost effectively as we could but we were flying blind insofar as because not only did we not have a budget but we were being told that cost was irrelevant.  Now, we knew that cost was not irrelevant, that we knew, as is easily found on a number of open-sourced media sites, that I was saying that among the considerations as to whether or not we ever mount a homicide inquiry as opposed to treating the scene as a potential homicide scene, but most of the considerations we will have taken not only is there contradictory evidence but there is also a financial cost and the evidence is contradictory.  That was as a result of those statements that I got told in no uncertain terms, and this was quite late on in the investigation, not too long before I retired, by [Chief Executive, States of Jersey] that cost was irrelevant.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Okay.  I think Deputy Wimberley wants to come in.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

Just a point of detail really; when you say in your written statement: “We monitored our own expenditure” who exactly is “we”?  Is that the State of Jersey Police as a whole or is it the inquiry team working on the Haut de la Garenne inquiry?


Mr. L. Harper:

Well, it was [then Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police] and myself and the senior management team in particular.  When it came to the inquiry it was ourselves who were looking at what we were spending and we trying to cut down and that comes into accommodation and everything else.  But [then Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police], in respect of the States of Jersey Police as a whole, that was a senior management team, we were having to look and monitor our own spending.


Deputy M. Tadier:

I will just jump in quickly.  Deputy Tadier.  At what point did the message change that, for example, initially you were being told that cost is no object to being asked where and why are you spending so much?


Mr. L. Harper:

Well, I was never asked why and when.  I was never asked why we were spending so much.  The email from [the Chief Executive, States of Jersey], which stated the financial cost was totally irrelevant, came not too long before I retired.  There were certain items which were picked up on and used, as stated at the time, be this for instance the trip to Australia; it came up before I retired and we were criticised for sending officers to Australia.  Now, we did a lengthy report justifying that and it went through [the Chief Officer, Home Affairs] because I had orally gone through it with him and he was in full agreement that the cost of this trip was totally justified because the officers had lost out financially by not taking rest days while they were out there, to get themselves home as quickly as possible.  We put that to bed but once I retired from the actual Island it was reintroduced again into the media and we were the subject of further criticism.


[11:30]


The fact that I had done and the officers under my command had completed this lengthy report, which had gone through [the Chief Officer, Home Affairs], through the Minister for Home Affairs, as far as the Chief Minister, that was totally ignored but the whole subject of the Australian trip was raised again.  So, the truth of the matter is that none of this business about our overspending was really raised with me while I was still in post.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Yes, Mr. Harper, Roy Le Hérissier here.  Reverting to the main questions, you say at one point in your submission that BDO Alto deliberately ignores the evidence in the Operation Rectangle summary report.  Could you explain how you believe this report supports your case about the investigation?


Mr. L. Harper:

Well, this is a lengthy document, which goes into all of the background as to how the investigation was mounted and it clearly states and clearly lays out the incremental steps that this inquiry took and the reasons for it.  It starts right back to the intelligence and the evidence that we were receiving to us going to, I think it was Cambridge, where we met with the National Policing Improvement Agency.  We met the forensic archaeologist and an anthropologist with others and we discussed all of this evidence.  We decided that we would carry out a preliminary reconnaissance of Haut de la Garenne and we then went there and that summary report clearly then describes all the technical and scientific aids and methods alongside the 2 dogs that were taken there by the National Policing Improvement Agency.  It goes through step by step every bit of reasoning and every bit of rationale the way we did what we did and that document was placed on the States of Jersey Police website before [the Acting Chief Officer] had it removed.  As I say, it clearly lays out and completely explodes the BDO comments that we appeared to be going in there on a whim and we had no evidence.  I think it was [retired D/Superintendent] who said that he would not have gone into Haut de la Garenne on the evidence we had.  This is of course contradicted, I think, by Wiltshire but not only that, if that is the case of [retired D/Superintendent] then shame on him because we had no choice but to do what we did and this Operation Rectangle summary of course lays that out in great detail and describes the technical methods that we used to build on each step before we took it.  


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Okay thank you, Mr. Harper, just following on from that; could you explain then how did that report interact with the finance people?  In other words, did you or did [then Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police] with you, did you go to the finance people and say: “Look, these are the very well researched steps which we will have to take.  They are all laid out in a phase and they will involve this kind of money”?  How did it sort of proceed in terms of the way that the finance came to interact with it?


Mr. L. Harper:

Well before we went into Haut de la Garenne one of the few people who knew what we were doing and who was told that we were going to excavate before we did was [the Chief Executive, States of Jersey], and I have got email evidence in which [the Chief Executive, States of Jersey] expresses his support for what we were doing and we explained.  We did not know at that stage what we were going to find so it was very much an incremental approach and we were working through the fact that it was operationally necessary; we were doing it in the most cost effective method we could.  But [the Chief Executive, States of Jersey] certainly knew about the operation before we carried it out and expressed his support for it.  


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Okay, just to carry on that line, Mr. Harper, and then I will cease; because obviously one of the underlying inferences it seems in the BDO Alto Report is that, yes, when the inquiry went to look at major issues, the collagen finding and so forth and so on, it seems to be an inference that things accelerated very quickly - the speed of the investigation - plus there was a loosening of financial control.  Do you accept that assertion?


Mr. L. Harper:

No, there was no loosening of financial control; there was, once the fragment was found there was a need then, even before that, to start excavating with archaeologists and anthropologists.  There was an escalation in spending, a huge escalation in spending.  Archaeologists and anthropologists are expensive experts to employ so there was an escalation in spending of that, there is no doubt.  What there was not was loosening of controls.  Now BDO, when they are talking about this fragment, BDO is stating as fact that this was identified as wood or coconut by someone at the carbon dating lab in Oxford though, as we know, this is absolute nonsense.  Firstly, nobody at that laboratory was qualified to say what that item was, their expertise was in carbon dating the evidence and it has to be said that they made a contradictory hash of that.  Secondly, certainly when I left there was never any evidence - other than a throwaway comment by somebody who looked at it - as to what this was.  The anthropologist again was badly, badly misquoted and I think it was [the Acting Chief Officer] who said that when the item came back - and this was repeated by BDO - when the item came back after being passed about without authority and without any proper auditing at this carbon dating lab, it came back and the anthropologist was quoted as saying she had now changed her mind and it was not human bone.  That was totally untrue.  I mean, her published evidence and her log and her daily diary absolutely disproves that.  What she said - and it has been well quoted - is that because the item had changed appearance, changed shape and changed colour she could no longer be so sure as to what it was but it would need to be properly examined in a laboratory again so that she could determine what it was.  So BDO have taken all that on board and have taken it all on board incorrectly, and I would have corrected that if they had bothered to come and speak to me about it.  So that whole thing about the initial fragment, there is no doubt that the finding of the initial fragment did accelerate the need for more experts to be obtained, and that certainly escalated the costs, but there was never any loosening of the financial controls because all along we were ... at that stage we had the National Policing Improvement Agency people onsite and as far as the Jersey Government were concerned we were being told that we were to use what resources we found were operationally necessary.  


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Okay, thank you.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Just to take you back to what you said about [retired D/Superintendent] and the Wiltshire Report, the Minister for Home Affairs has acknowledged that, in his words, [retired D/Superintendent] did put a slightly different spin on the decision to go into Haut de la Garenne.  Are you surprised and what do you think is the reason for some of these discrepancies coming out into the media?


Mr. L. Harper:

Well I just find it absolutely unbelievable that when [the Minister] said he put a slightly different spin on it he was feeding the media and the public totally incorrect information.  One of the biggest criticisms that has been levelled at me has been my handling of the media, now here we have somebody deliberately manipulating - and there is no other word for it - giving untrue information to the media and the public and I presume to the Jersey Government as well; and it is put down as sort of words that he slightly spun it wrongly.  I mean, for instance, he and [the Acting Chief Officer] clearly stated - and BDO were no doubt subject to this as well - but he clearly stated that there were no cellars or no spaces in there more than about 3 feet in height but that has been clearly disproved.  So that was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public and the media.  Other aspects of it, I mean, BDO accept without question the fact that these bones that were sent off have not been lab tested or subject to peer review.  I mean, a very, very eminent anthropologist in Sheffield identified a number of bones that we sent him as being human juvenile which had been burnt shortly after death and had been buried shortly after being burnt.  He used the phrase to the anthropologist, which was recorded in her written note, that these bones were fleshed and fresh when they were put in the earth.  Now, for [retired D/Superintendent] to say that we were wrong in going to search for these, it disfigures belief, it is absolutely incredible.  I mean, [retired D/Superintendent] never mentioned [the anthropologist’s] report, it seems to have disappeared into thin air.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Okay.  I mean, I appreciate that all these are deeply linked but we have to try and stick to the terms of reference.  Could I move you on to the fact that [Police consultant] was engaged by the Acting Chief Officer to undertake a review prior to the engagement of BDO, were you aware of that?


Mr. L. Harper:

I was not aware of it until again I read it in, I think, a blog very, very recently or Voice For Children, I am not sure which one of the 2.  I have done some research on [Police consultant] and I do not know [Police consultant] and I did not know [retired D/Superintendent].  When [retired D/Superintendent] went for the job he was one of 6 applicants; the other 5 applicants came to speak to me, he did not, so I had never met [retired D/Superintendent] previously to him taking over.  Now, [Police consultant] worked in the same area in the same region and doing the same type of work as [retired D/Superintendent] did for many, many years.  Now, I find it difficult to accept that [the Acting Chief Officer] would have been appointing someone that he thought was truly independent to assist BDO when he appointed [Police consultant].


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Okay, and are you aware of how [Police consultant]’s report appears to have fed in or interacted with the BDO Alto Report?


Mr. L. Harper:

Well I only know that ... I think the report states somewhere that it was the joint findings of [Police consultant] and BDO.  


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

For the record, you were never approached by any of those people?


Mr. L. Harper:

No.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

Can I ask, Mr. Harper, how in your view it should have gone and what the changes might have been that would have resulted from that, if any?


Mr. L. Harper:

Well I think you are probably sensible to say what the changes might have been because no one knows if BDO would have been honest or open minded enough to look at what I was going to tell them and then change their conclusion.  But if they had come to me and gone through and asked me questions then almost every single criticism they make of me would have had an alternative explanation.  They would have had other evidence, which I would insist is fairly easily verifiable.  One has to imagine that there probably would have been some changes through the conclusions but that is not the important thing, the important thing is that they would have alternative explanations and alternative evidence to almost every point of criticism that they made in that report.  Now, if it was going to be an objective and fair independent report then you certainly must have an alternative explanation to the rather biased and one-sided stuff that you get in the first place.  The fact that they did not took away any possibility that they could claim to have examined all sides of the story.


Deputy M. Tadier:

Mr. Harper, I will jump in, it is Deputy Tadier again.  You have made several statements, one of which was about the Minister for Home Affairs saying he gave untrue information which was done deliberately.  You have also said, for example, that you are not sure that had you given evidence to BDO that they would have necessarily treated it in an open minded or honest way.  You have also said that they have misinterpreted other information.  I think the underlying question we have to ask is clearly you are implying that there is some kind of deliberate wrongdoing here and what is the motivation for the either omission of information or the alleged misinterpretation - deliberate or otherwise - from the BDO Alto Report?


Mr. L. Harper:

Well if I deal with the first matter first; yes, I am claiming and I am convinced that there is some ulterior motivation for this.  I find it so incredible that when BDO were asked to examine the decision making in the financial area of this inquiry that they did not bother to ask the person who made the overwhelming majority of the financial decisions.  They did not bother to ask that.  Now, this was further exacerbated when I emailed the Minister for Home Affairs and he totally denied having anything to do with the inquiry, and in a second email a little later changed his story and says well he may have had something to do with it.  Then we had the amount of false information which was fed to BDO in respect of things like the fragment and the Wiltshire statement and other bits and pieces; and I am forced to think that these were such obvious inconsistencies, such obvious factual inaccuracies that somebody did not want me to be spoken to because I would have immediately contradicted these and produced the evidence to contradict quite a number of them.  


[11:45]


In respect of why this should be so, I mean, I am under no illusions; I have retired and left Jersey so in the normal run of events nobody would have cared about trying to smear or discredit me and that would have been totally irrelevant.  I was back in the U.K., if I had gone back to Jersey again it would have been as a private citizen with absolutely no remit to interfere with anything over there.  So me on my own would not have been worth trying to smear or discredit.  I am absolutely certain that the reason why so much effort was put in to try and discredit and smear me was because the investigation that I was carrying out was supporting the evidence which was being given by the victims of abuse which was inflicted on them in Jersey care homes; and they were the real target of this attempt to muddy the waters.  I was not the target, I was purely the intermediary.  If they could discredit me and discredit [then Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police] and discredit the investigation then at the same time the evidence of the abuse victims was being discredited as well.  They were the real target.


Deputy M. Tadier:

Okay, thank you.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Thank you, Mr. Harper, Roy Le Hérissier again.  In terms of the BDO Alto Report, to what extent do you have any documentary evidence in your possession which you feel would have been of use to that report?


Mr. L. Harper:

Well, I mean, I have laid out in my written submission the evidence.  I mean, one of the attachments that I did send with the report was the strategy document for the search by the National Policing Improvement Agency.  Their homicide search expert, who laid out the strategy and it made clear that the strategy we were working through had been discussed with, approved by and drawn up by the National Policing Improvement agency.  Now, the impression given by the BDO inquiry, at the heart of the BDO conclusions is the claim that the main trigger for all of the spending was the inquiry into Haut de la Garenne and BDO flatly state that this entry was unjustified.  There is absolutely no qualification to that.  BDO state that our entry to Haut de la Garenne was unjustified and if they had come to me I would have given them the supporting evidence, including the strategy for the search and the rationale for the search which was drawn up by the National Policing Improvement Agency experts.  Even Wiltshire said that they were sound operational reasons for entry.  Now, the detailed rationale was totally ignored by [the Acting Chief Officer] and [retired D/Superintendent] and it is their version that BDO have printed in their report to say that the main trigger for most of the unjustified spending was the entry into Haut de la Garenne; and BDO also state that entry was unjustified and I would have supplied a fair bit of evidence to show that was not true.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Okay thank you, Mr. Harper.  Just a supplementary on that, and I think you partly answered this previously; so what you are saying is at every major point in the investigation there was a policy justification, and not only that, you were in liaison with the financial people, they knew full well what the implications were of you taking more steps deeper into the investigation?  You would accept that?


Mr. L. Harper:

Yes, absolutely.  Absolutely.  


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Can I just - and then I will keep quiet - on this issue of documentary evidence coming to more mundane stuff, I mean, there has been a lot of mention of restaurants and the Bombay Brassiere and so forth and so on.  Do you have receipts and all that for that kind of thing, could that have been produced?


Mr. L. Harper:

No, all receipts for any expenditure in that respect were all handed in and were all given in.  I mean, just going on to that, BDO attacked me for spending in restaurants and hotels and they seem to be saying - and I think whether or not it is accidental or deliberate - but they seem to be deliberating confusing the issue between the regulations in regards to purchasing, for instance, alcohol when away and buying refreshments.  The regulations are quite clear that if you are buying, say for instance, lunch or, et cetera, et cetera, and you are claiming back expenses then you should not be claiming for alcohol and you should not be spending money on alcohol, and that is easy to see and easy to adhere to.  So they did not make the differentiation between and they criticised the spending on entertainment and hospitality, either for police officers or even, on the odd occasion, journalists; and they do not differentiate between the use of a hospitality budget which was a legitimate budget given for hospitality by [the Chief Officer, Home Affairs], and the use of that as regards to not buying and claiming for alcohol on normal expenses.  For instance, BDO compare the use on my expense account in respect of items like travel and hotels and hospitality and they compare it, for instance, with a small force in Yorkshire.  They seem to be saying that it was absolutely outrageous and somewhat sinister that I spent in an 8 or 9-month period something like £2,000 more than the Deputy Chief Constable of a force in Yorkshire.  Now, if they had bothered to ask me about that I would have pointed out to them that (a) this little force in Yorkshire did not have a major inquiry; (b) the Deputy Chief Constable did not have to cross the English Channel every time they wanted to go somewhere or stay in hotels.  I would have pointed out, yes, I did, I did buy alcoholic drinks for people that I was entertaining and giving hospitality to.  But I would have to say that this is a common reason for hospitality, and I remember even the very first trip that I did to the U.K. as a Jersey police officer where one police officer who was carrying out the inquiry that I was over there to supervise was buying large rounds of alcoholic drinks people at the meeting, which included not only people from the American Embassy but also a large number of barristers and staff from 7 Bedford Road who I came into contact with later on; but also 2 senior members of the Jersey Law Officers’ Department who obviously saw nothing wrong in that and who participated in that.  So I think it was wrong and misleading in the way that they attacked me for what I was doing and, I have said in my written submissions, I am quite happy to have my spending in this area of hospitality and travel, et cetera, compared to any other department or politicians or civil servants in Jersey and compared to the benefits that I have bought in compared to what I spent.  So I think even there that, yes, I did, I am ...


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I think you have made your point there, Mr. Harper.  Did you have another point?  We really need to move on, Mr. Harper, as time is pressing.  Could I take you on to the issue that does fall within these terms of reference that really apply to you: the issue of the witness statements to the Wiltshire inquiry.  Obviously BDO mention on 2 instances in their reports your statement to Wiltshire; have you got any explanation as to how BDO Alto or the Minister would have these statements or how they came to be used, or appear to be used?


Mr. L. Harper:

I have made inquiries with this with both Wiltshire and [the Minister].  Now, again, [the Minister] originally told me that it was Wiltshire who must have given the statement to BDO and I have that on an email from [the Minister].  I then complained to Wiltshire Police and they carried out a lengthy and detailed investigation and only last week I received a letter from a solicitor acting for the Wiltshire Police who flatly denied that they had ever supplied details of my statement to BDO.  Around about the same time, of course, we then had the announcement by the Minister for Home Affairs that he had in effect changed his mind; whereas he had told me that it was Wiltshire that supplied the statement he now seemed to be saying that in actual fact it was [retired D/Superintendent] who supplied it through David Rose and who leaked the statement.  Now, my honest truth is that I have got no idea who leaked it, all I know is that this was a confidential witness statement that I made to Wiltshire Police; it was made as part of a discipline investigation surrounding [then Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police]; it was made on the condition that it was used for no other purpose other than that investigation; it contained sensitive details as well as names of victims and suspects and I was assured by Wiltshire Police that no one - not even myself - would be given a copy of it and they told me that the statement was exempt from the Freedom of Information laws and in fact they issued a severe warning that any disclosure of information from the statement would be likely to prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and Jersey.  


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Given what you have said, Mr. Harper, can you tell us do you intend to take any action in relation to that matter?


Mr. L. Harper:

Well to be honest I am still looking at what options there are.  I mean, Wiltshire has said that they did not leak it in any way, so at this moment in time I have got no plans to look at any action.  But that probably is because I really do not know at this stage how come BDO came to be in possession.  The thing that worries me about [the Minister] saying that [retired D/Superintendent] may have given the statement to different people is that [retired D/Superintendent] had left the Island early on before at least it was given to one of the people it has been accused of.  So the answer to that is I really do not know how they came to get hold of it and because of that, at this moment in time, I have got no plans to do anything.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

Looking at this in the round, is there any possibility in your mind that it may be BDO Alto were given little bits of your statement to Wiltshire; in other words, not including any references to defendants or victims or whatever but just the bits that are quoted in fact in BDO Alto, in other words not confidential or controversial items?


Mr. L. Harper:

Well, no, Wiltshire have flatly denied giving BDO any of my statement and the time span I am not totally clear on between the 2 inquiries.  But you have to look at what Wiltshire have said, and the solicitor was quite clear that Wiltshire are denying all knowledge of it and as a result of the fact that somebody else has leaked it, Wiltshire have now sent me copies of the statement so they obviously feel that the horse has bolted from the stable.  But I do not think that it was Wiltshire who fed the information to BDO because of the wording that they have given in respect of freedom of information and they specifically say that it is exempt from it.  I really do not think that Wiltshire would have fed this to BDO.


Deputy M. Tadier:

I suppose just to follow up then, and it may be, Mr. Harper, you cannot answer this.  Who do you think was the most likely source of what we called a leak?


Mr. L. Harper:

Well I would think probably ... I would say that I would think that it was probably [the Acting Chief Officer].  


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Obviously the panel have not had the benefit of meeting BDO as yet officially, as I have.  What was put across to us from BDO - the officer and myself - was that there is a possibility that [Police consultant]’s report that was going on at the same time as BDO, parts of it appear to have been fed in to BDO and almost merged.  Could there be an explanation there for how your statement came to be ...


Mr. L. Harper:

Yes, and that would have come from the States of Jersey Police, that would have had to have come from [the Acting Chief Officer] because [Police consultant] was, I think, commissioned by [the Acting Chief Officer] and that would have had to come through [the Acting Chief Officer] and into [Police consultant]’s report.  Now if - as I seem to recall - somewhere in the BDO report it says that the conclusions were a combination of [Police consultant] and BDO, then that would explain that perfectly, yes.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

I am still puzzled by this.  My understanding of the Wilshire Report was that all the boxes of evidence that went into it, if you like, including [then Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police]’s statement and your statement, were not public documents so they would not have gone with the report - redacted or un-redacted - to anyone.  So how come your statement ends up anywhere really, apart from Wiltshire’s files?


[12:00]


Mr. L. Harper:

Well I think that the statements would have had to go to the States of Jersey Police along with the report; even though they are not public documents they form part of the evidence and part of the report.  For instance, when I did that anti-corruption inquiry in Guernsey not long before I retired although none of the statements that I took were public documents the statements formed part of the report which goes to the recipient of the report.  So the statements would have gone with the report; it goes, in effect, to either the States of Jersey Police of the Minister for Home Affairs.  So the statements would have certainly gone with the actual report by the investigating officer along with documentary exhibits, along with everything else, it would have gone as a package.  Now, I seem to recall somebody saying that the Wiltshire Report consists of a huge number of packing crates and boxes.  That would not only have been the investigating officer’s summary report but would have included all the ancillary documents such as statements and exhibits and everything else.  So it would all have gone to the recipient of the report and perhaps the term “report” is a wee bit misleading because they would all have been headed by a report by the investigating officer which brought all of that together.  But the documents, including the statements, would have been attached to that.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Another different line of questioning; you state elsewhere, I think it is on an email from you found on a blog that the report relies on the now discredited Met review.  Could you expand on that?  


Mr. L. Harper:

Yes, for a start that Met review, that interim was issued without ever speaking to myself and without ever speaking to the leader of the actual homicide review team who was reviewing my investigation and mentoring myself.  So that interim report, first of all, was issued and publicly used in the details surrounding the suspension of [then Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police] and it was also made clear, I think, by the Napier report that in the use of that, [the Acting Chief Officer] withheld vital information of what was made public to the Minister for Home Affairs and which was used by the media in respect of that.  Then of course arising from that was the letter which purported to be based on that report, which had false dates but also again had vital information withheld from it.  So all in all, I think I am fairly justified in using the term “discredited” to discredit that particular so-called interim report which was not so much as a report but a one and a half page email, as far I can make out from what I have learned since.  


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Thanks, Mr. Harper.  Just for the record, did you see that report?  


Mr. L. Harper:

No, no, I have never seen that report.  I made a formal complaint to the Metropolitan Police, which they initially refused to investigate, but then I complained to the Independent Police Complaints Commission and they have forced the Met to investigate it.  


The Deputy of St. Mary:

Can I ask about the Met report, the interim report rather?  Do you have any comment to make about BDO having access to that report because my understanding was that that report was absolutely confidential and that basically only [the Acting Chief Officer] had seen it?  


Mr. L. Harper:

Well, it was supposed to be confidential because [the Acting Chief Officer] did not even show it, as I understand, to the Minister for Home Affairs.  Instead he allegedly summarised it in a letter, so if BDO have had access to that report, it certainly seems that they have, and this brings the link back again to [Police consultant] through to [the Acting Chief Officer].  Then again that is an absolute breach of data protection and an absolute breach of everything that has gone before in that report and is almost verging on a criminal attempt to suppress the truth.  


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Shall we move on?  Can we move you on then, Mr. Harper, to how material came to end up in a national newspaper?  Did you make any attempt to correct any misleading information that was contained in that article?  


Mr. L. Harper:

Yes I had a couple of journalists, one from the Sunday Times and one, a freelancer who wrote very often for the Mail who is a renowned campaigners for children’s rights who had, in fact, won an award for exposing the North London/Islington child abuse, and who has cross words with David Rose on several occasions.  I sent a number of emails to the Daily Mail and I did long interviews with this journalist who did, in fact, publish an article some time later which contradicted much of what was written.  But a very, very well known journalist, David James Smith from the Sunday Times, published a couple of articles, which tried to set the record clear.  But in truth, I sent a long email to the Mail on Sunday the night prior to the David Rose article being published and I went through bit by bit, but the article was published nevertheless.  


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Can I ask you, one of the big criticisms of you obviously has been your alleged inappropriate interaction with the media?  What is your reaction then where the Minister for Home Affairs has indicated that in his view it is probably your successor who got this information and leaked it, for want of a better term, into the media domain?  


Mr. L. Harper:

Well, I mean, you know, I am not going to be stupid and say I never ever made any mistakes in any aspect of the inquiry, including dealing with the media.  Of course I must have done but these mistakes are made honestly.  If I made mistakes, whatever they were, then I made them on the basis of trying to do my best for the victims of the abuse that I was investigating and for the public in general.  These leaks, to me, are deliberate, verging on criminal leaks in an attempt to rubbish the investigation, which was going before, which was uncovering corroboration for the allegations made by victims of abuse.  These are deliberate leaks to try and mislead the public, and for me to be criticised for making mistakes when we have people here deliberately feeding false information to the media is absolutely incredible.  


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

One more point and then I will let my colleagues come in.  Obviously none of us have got any control of what the media do and how they portray things but you have acknowledged that you could have done better.  You are quite open about that.  On reflection, do you think that your failings then, for want of a better word, merited some of the headlines like the celebrity lifestyle of Lenny Harper?  Was that fair?  


Mr. L. Harper:

No, absolutely not.  There was no celebrity lifestyle and when you dig into the truth of the expense, I mean when you look at the BDO quote of £4,860 for 8 months which works out at about £608 a month, and when you look at the fact that over that same period that was probably about £250, £200 a month less than the Deputy Chief Constable in Yorkshire that they seem to be equating with, saying I was somehow sinister.  I mean that is not even a return fare from Jersey to London.  So I think that what made it unfair was the fact, I think, and what made it more so than unfair but totally unjustified, untrue and damaging to the allegations of abuse by the victims, which is the most serious aspect of this.  The most serious aspect of it is not that it is around me but that it was causing people to look askance at the evidence of the abuse victims, was the fact that nobody thought to get an alternative explanation to the nonsense that they were putting out publicly in the report.  


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Okay, thank you.  Deputy Wimberley?  


The Deputy of St. Mary:

Yes.  I am just interested really in a little detail.  You said that you contacted the Daily Mail before they published the long David Rose article.  Was that in the sense that David Rose contacted you and gave you some kind of right of influencing that article or how did that work out?  


Mr. L. Harper:

Well, what happened was a journalist I know from the Glasgow office of the Mail on Sunday came down to see me and said: “Look, this guy, David Rose, is going to print this article tomorrow.  It does not correspond with what I know and it seems to me that it is an attempt to smear it and she tipped me off about this and I then contacted ... No, David Rose would not contact me because I told him quite bluntly on the previous occasion that I had contact with him that in my opinion he was a sympathiser with the worst type of convicted paedophile.  I mean I said in my other statement that he gave evidence on behalf of Frank Beck who was a rapist in care homes in Leicestershire.  He actually gave evidence on this man’s behalf and gave evidence on behalf of the North Wales care home abusers and said that the subsequent public inquiry which sustained the convictions was nonsense.  So David Rose would not contact me because he knew full well what my opinion of him is.  It was a journalist in Glasgow who tipped me off.  


The Deputy of St. Mary:

Okay, yes, thank you.  After it appeared, clearly it said in it that there was this report going on in Jersey or a report had been written or referred to a report, did you then try to contact the States of Jersey Police or find out who was writing this report and what was going on?  


Mr. L. Harper:

To be honest, to this day I have not read David Rose’s article.  I have no real wish to, there was nothing I could do about it, I knew what was going to be in the article in respect of the criticisms about different bits and pieces, but I never actually read the article and I did not contact Rose, but I continued to have correspondence with the Mail and indeed some weeks later they did a 3-page spread which covered some of the aspects by the journalist, Eileen Fairweather, who attempted to correct some of it but not all of the corrections, and not all of what I said within that second article, but certainly yes, we did through Eileen Fairweather, in the Mail as well go some way towards rectifying some of what David Rose had said.  But, as I say, to be honest I have never actually sat down and read David Rose’s article.  


The Deputy of St. Mary:

So you knew what was in it without reading it?  


Mr. L. Harper:

Yes, well, as I say, the journalist who came from the same newspaper gave me a list of the things that he was saying.  


The Deputy of St. Mary:

I see, yes, but to go back to the point about the fact that the Rose article mentions that there is a leak, that there was a report that it was based on.  Was that a chance to get in touch with the Jersey authorities and say: “I want my point of view put forward”, or is that really for them to do?  


Mr. L. Harper:

No, I only really became aware of the fact that this report had been leaked through one of the Jersey blogs in the last few weeks.  That is only how I became aware of the details of the actual leak of the report and it was then that I saw the so-called report had been leaked from 5 days after this was going to the Commission.  It is only in the last couple of weeks that I have become familiar with all of that.  


The Deputy of St. Mary:

I suppose we have to remember that technically you are retired.  


Mr. L. Harper:

Well I am not technically, I am retired, but not only that there comes a time, and I am sure you will understand that when you are the subject of too much personal vitriolic criticism, it comes to a stage particularly, you know, with going through other things that were going on in my family’s life that you just do not want ... you do not want to deliberately go in and read more nonsense written about yourself, which you know is not true and which you can well do without.  


The Deputy of St. Mary:

Yes, thank you.  


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I am conscious of the time moving on, Mr. Harper, so perhaps I could say that obviously we do not have BDO in for a couple of weeks probably.  It may be that we need to speak to you again; are you quite happy to do this?  


Mr. L. Harper:

Yes, absolutely.  I think I have told you that this week I am visiting ... off to Venice and I am back, I think, on 28th July, and of course absolutely, any time after that I am quite happy to talk to you.  


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Okay.  What I will do is ask my colleagues if they have any final questions and then perhaps at the end if you have any final thoughts that you want to give the panel?  


[12:15]


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Mr. Harper, Roy Le Hérissier here again, sorry I am the one who seems to be charged with coming back to the financial details again.  When the inquiry was ongoing and when you were on the Island, did anyone tell you: “Look, you know, you are very busy with this.  You are moving it along but we really have to pin down the finances”?  Did anyone say: “We have got to see what we can learn from this”, or did you just go away on to your well-earned retirement, as we have just mentioned, that all of a sudden this other report appears out of the blue?  Was there any attempt when you were here to try and bring together the experience of people like you and the finance people in order to work out new ways forward?  


Mr. L. Harper:

No, there was not because the nearest that we came to that was sitting down with [the Chief Officer, Home Affairs] and ...  The nearest we got was sitting down and talking with [the Chief Officer, Home Affairs] and [Head of Finance] and going through the expenditure, and both of those always at every stage expressed satisfaction, and I have to say, some frustration as well with the fact that they were aware that we were trying to keep costs down to a budget that we did not have and also being told, and I mean I gave [the Chief Officer, Home Affairs] a copy of the email to [the Chief Executive, States of Jersey] which said ... because it covers [the Chief Officer, Home Affairs]’s back.  He was a man I had a lot of time for and I felt that that email ... because I could foresee that such was the atmosphere and the environment that I knew we were going to be attacked after I left and I knew [the Chief Officer, Home Affairs] would be attacked.  I gave [the Chief Officer, Home Affairs] a copy of the email to [the Chief Executive, States of Jersey], which quite clearly stated: “Look, do not mention costs again.  You are not to consider cost.  It is irrelevant”, but in effect we were doing that every day but nobody sat down with me and said: “Look, this has got out of control, you need to look at lessons now.”  There is absolutely no question of lessons having to be learnt before I left the Island.  


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Okay, Mr. Harper, just one follow up.  Since you have left, of course there has an awful lot of chat about the fact ... well serious discussion, that [the Chief Officer, Home Affairs], although the accounting officer, he does not have control over the way the police spend their money.  Would you say that that was a real issue as your investigation proceeded and as the alleged inability to financially control it appeared, would you say that was a real issue?  


Mr. L. Harper:

No, it was not a real issue for us on that one occasion because we were being told ... despite the fact we were not given a budget, we were being told: “You spend what you have to, what is operationally necessary.”  That was an absolutely fantastic position to be in for a senior investigating officer.  Even though we were very aware that we had to keep the costs down, we did not have a budget where we were being told: “Do not consider cost.”  It would be a nightmare and it must have been a nightmare for [the Chief Officer, Home Affairs] because he was responsible for spending but, as you say, he had no ... for a number of reasons, [then Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police] had ultimate control of the police budget in practice.  In theory, [the Chief Officer, Home Affairs] said: “You are responsible for this but you have actually got no responsibility for the way it is used because you have got no responsibility for police operations.”  Now that was very unfair, I think, to [the Chief Officer, Home Affairs] in that respect and unfair in other respects to the police.  But certainly I would not have wanted to have been in [the Chief Officer, Home Affairs]’s position because he was ultimately responsible for spending and did make some attempt to speak to me and get reassurances about what we were spending, and I told them what we were spending it on and why we were spending it and he was happy with that.  But at the end of the day he was responsible, as you say, ultimately responsible for police spending, and yet you have this contradictory situation where it says the chief officer is totally responsible for police operations.  Most of the police costs go on staff and operations so you have this conflict.  It was not a problem for us because of [the Chief Executive, States of Jersey] and the Chief Minister’s (a) refusal to give a budget and say: “You just spend what you feel is operationally necessary.”  So no, it was not a problem for us, although what we did was try and control the spending quite rigidly even down to seeking cheap, cheap deals in the hotels for visiting officers but it would have been a nightmare (a) for [the Chief Officer, Home Affairs], and I suspect in the normal run of events where the chief officer is using his budget to run police operations, [the Chief Officer, Home Affairs] cannot interfere in those operations, but is ultimately responsible for the spending.  


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Okay, thank you.  


Deputy M. Tadier:

A question I have, of course we have - it is Deputy Tadier again - we have yet to fully establish how and through whom the confidential information was leaked or revealed to the Daily Mail but in your opinion how likely is it that that would have taken place without the knowledge of somebody at the Home Affairs Department?  


Mr. L. Harper:

Well, bearing in mind the close link between the Home Affairs Department and [the Acting Chief Officer], I think it is unlikely that it would not have been known about at Home Affairs.  It is not inconceivable that [the Acting Chief Officer] leaked that information and did not tell anybody, but I would think it is probably, given the close working relationship in respect of all of those matters, including the Met interim report, Wiltshire, and everything else, I would have thought it unlikely.  


Deputy M. Tadier:

Okay, thanks.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Just to move on from that point, Mr. Harper, could you make it any clearer to us, what was the link between the journalist in the U.K. with the States of Jersey, because I believe you have stated that he received another leak from within the Jersey Government, so to speak?  


Mr. L. Harper:

What happened in that respect was that an email from [then Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police] to a certain Senator was leaked.  It was handed over to this journalist who then telephoned [then Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police] and as with a lot of companies we had a system whereby a number of calls into the force were recorded and there was no secret about it, actually it was quite well publicised and in fact in some extensions you are told the call may be recorded, but in fact this call was recorded and in this call David Rose told [then Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police] that he had been leaked this email by the Senator and ... 


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Can you just clarify which Senator, not the Minister for Home Affairs, which Senator?  


Mr. L. Harper:

No, , it was not the Minister for Home Affairs, no.  I mean I can name the Senator if you want me to name him?  


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

That is fine.  


Mr. L. Harper:

I have deliberately not done that but if you want me to name him I can name him.  


The Deputy of St. Mary:

It is in your witness statement.  


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

It is in your statement, yes.  


Deputy M. Tadier:

Maybe for public record to get the other 11 Senators off the hook.  


Mr. L. Harper:

It was Senator Perchard.  


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Okay.  


Mr. L. Harper:

The email was addressed to Senator Perchard.  I think it was copied to the ... it may have been copied to the Chief Minister, I am not sure, but David Rose certainly, on that tape recording said that he had been given the email by Senator Perchard, which sort of fitted in with the emails that had gone before it, between Mr. Perchard and [then Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police].  So it is fair to say that despite the tape recording, David Rose denied saying that Senator Perchard had given him that email and, of course, Senator Perchard denied that he had leaked it.  But the fact remains that there was an email which was leaked which had been sent to Senator Perchard, and which David Rose had said he had received from Senator Perchard.  Now there was another email as well, which I had sent, which had been given to David Rose as the basis of an earlier article and which had been changed, and I was never able to, from the newspaper article and the quotes that were in the newspaper article, were different from the quotes that were actually in the email that I had sent and I was never able to tie down whether it was, in actual fact, a case that someone had forwarded the email to David Rose and he had changed it or whether somebody at the States had changed it and sent it to David Rose, and that still remains a mystery.  But certainly David Rose was in the picture and on the scene from way before this leak that we are talking about was made to him.  


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

A final point from me and then I will ask you for your thoughts.  Taking you back to the money and what you said recently, would it be fair to say, even though it is obviously a very muddled system that Jersey has had and it does not compare with authorities in the UK, should [then Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police], as your senior officer, have done more to ensure tighter control of the budget because obviously you were not ... you say you were not getting much help or support but should he have done more or should you have done more?  


Mr. L. Harper:

No, I got every support that I needed and [then Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police] was a very hands on manager, a very hands on supervisor and not only was he on one end battering the political end of it to try and get us a budget that we could work to, but he was also ... I was meeting with him on a daily basis, and keeping him up-to-date and he was then using what I was briefing him to go and placate the politicians who were breathing down his neck.  So in my view, [then Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police] did everything that he should have done and did everything that he needed to do, and he was satisfied, as I was, that I was trying to keep and ... you know, let us not hide the fact this was a hugely expensive operation, particularly the dig at Haut de la Garenne, but there was no way around doing what we did and, you know, archaeologists and anthropologists are expensive people to employ.  It was hugely expensive but when you look at the efforts, I mean I had my ... my P.A.  (personal assistant) was employed almost full time on going on the internet and getting cheap flights and cheap hotels and, I mean, I have been criticised for using L’Horizon Hotel, but the L’Horizon Hotel rates were equivalent to what probably most people were paying for bed and breakfast there in Jersey now, so we did everything that we could.  We called in favours.  We got a sifting machine from the antiterrorist squad in London, which would have cost us an absolute fortune.  We got it totally free of charge and that not only saved us in that respect, but saved many, many, many hundreds of man hours.  We went to great lengths and great effort to try and cut down costs even the  officers were forgoing days off when they were in Australia to save costs.  We did all that we could.  Again, I am not saying that we were perfect.  I am not saying that we did not make mistakes.  There is absolutely no inquiry, no investigation anywhere in the world which could lay claim to being perfect but, you know, we did our best and we kept costs down and [then Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police], any criticism that he showed no interest and did not do what he should have done is totally unfair because he was not ... I would not say he was in my face but he was there as an ever present supervisory and advisory person to go to.  


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

We are going to have to end this at half past but is there any final thoughts that you would like to put to the panel?  


Mr. L. Harper:

No, I just am grateful for the opportunity at this stage to answer some of the criticisms and I have got absolutely nothing else that I need to say to you, but please feel free if you do need to contact me again, then please do.  


Senator T.M. Pitman:

As I said, we did have a request from the media perhaps given the time, would it be easier for you if you stayed on the line and the media were to contact you directly?  


Mr. L. Harper:

I am quite happy to do it whichever way.  I am quite happy to answer some questions from the media.  I do not mind.  


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I will end the hearing there, Mr. Harper.  Obviously it is our money, the States’ money, so I will let the media put one question to you each and if they do want to go to any more length then they can get in touch with you themselves.


Mr. L. Harper:

Okay, no problem.  


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Thank you very much for your participation.  


[12:28]


Note: Mr. Harper appears to be referring to the retired D/Superintendent rather than the Minister in this context (page 12)







  SCRUTINY PANEL REVIEW OF THE BDO ALTO REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL     

                  MANAGEMENT OF OPERATION RECTANGLE.                  

                                            SUBMISSION BY GRAHAM POWER QPM.      

                           RETIRED CHIEF OFFICER OF THE STATES OF JERSEY POLICE.             

    

  • On 29th June 2011 I received an invitation from the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel to contribute to their review of the BDO Alto report on “Operation Rectangle” (the Jersey Historic Child Abuse Enquiry.)   The BDO Alto report is concerned mainly with matters of financial management.   I responded to the Panel on 29th June 2011 indicating that I would provide further information within two weeks.   This document constitutes my submission to the panel.   It was completed and posted on 5th July 2011.
  • In accordance with the wishes of the Panel I have not engaged in debate on the detailed substance of the BDO Alto report but have sought to restrict my comments to issues which could be considered to be more strategic, and relevant to any assessment of the fairness, integrity and professionalism of the report as a review of the financial management of the Abuse Enquiry.   I also have in mind the fact that I have already placed on record substantial comment relating to the Financial Management of Operation Rectangle and that this may be available to the Panel.   I will refer to this in more detail in paragraph 4 of this submission.   A consequence of this approach is that my submission may appear to be brief.   It is however intended to be read alongside the material which I have already provided.
  • I can confirm that as Chief Officer of the Force during the period covered in the report I have never been approached by BDO Alto, or asked to contribute to their review or subsequent report.   To the best of my recollection I had never heard of BDO Alto or their report until they were drawn to my attention a few weeks ago by an entry on an internet blog.   The Panel may wish to come to its own view as to whether this approach by BDO Alto is consistent with recognised standards of fairness, and a desire on the part of the report’s authors to seek the unbiased truth.
  • Nevertheless, I have already made significant comment on many of the issues referred to within the report.   These comments were made in my 62,000 word written statement to Wiltshire Police as part of their investigation under the Disciplinary Code for the Chief Officer of Police.   The Wiltshire investigation commenced in December 2008 and concluded in mid-2010.   No disciplinary charges were brought as a result of the Wiltshire investigation.   In particular, paragraphs 265 to 284 of my statement deal specifically with issues of financial management in response to questions put to me by Wiltshire.   The Minister for Home Affairs is in possession of a copy of my full statement.  I have also retained copies.    I am not closely familiar with the powers and protocols which govern the work of the Scrutiny Panel.   It may be however that the Panel may wish to view all or part of my statement to Wiltshire Police, and in particular those parts which offer responses to  the issues which Wiltshire raised with me concerning the financial management of the Abuse Enquiry.   If that is the case I assume the appropriate means by which the panel should seek a copy of the statement would be to make a request to the Minister.   I can however confirm that at no time has the Minister, Wiltshire Police or any other party asked for my agreement to share any part of my statement with BDO Alto.
  • I note that the BDO Alto report makes reference to some expenses allegedly claimed by the former Deputy Chief Officer.   In this context the Panel may see value in examining the rules governing the authorisation of expense payments which were drawn up by myself in consultation with the States Auditors following an audit review and report which were completed some time prior to the Abuse Enquiry.   The report by the States Auditors along with its recommendations should be available to the panel.   The Panel will see that under the rules governing the payment of expenses, no payment can be made on any expense claim by the Deputy Chief Officer unless the claim is countersigned by the Chief Officer of the Force.   To date nobody, including Wiltshire Police, have alleged that I countersigned any of the allegedly contentious claims, and I have no recollection of doing so.   On the information available to me the only conclusion I can draw is that, irrespective of the merits or otherwise of the expense claims, it appears some person has made payments to the Deputy Chief Officer in breach of the rules governing such payments, and in particular it appears that payments were made without any prior authority from the Chief Officer and without the knowledge of the Chief Officer.   It is hard to see how the person making the payment could have been anyone other than a member of the Finance Section of the Home Affairs Department.   The panel may wish to examine the extent to which this apparent breach of the financial rules has been investigated.
  • The BDO Alto report and other published documents, make reference to the role of the Accounting Officer for the police budget.   The person identified by law as fulfilling this role is the Chief Officer of the Home Affairs Department, who is supported by senior and well qualified financial staff.   At the relevant time there were no financial staff working under the direction of the Chief Officer of Police.   The powers and responsibilities of the Accounting Officer are not matters for debate.   They are enshrined in law.   With the relevant legislation in mind the Panel may wish to consider whether the balance of investigative effort and critical comment has been correctly struck between the actions of operational Police Officers, with no financial training or qualifications, and the trained accountants of the Home Affairs Department who share a legal responsibility for the financial management of the Police Service.   In my view a fair balance has not been achieved.   It appears to me that the actions of Police Officers have been subjected to intense scrutiny and critical comment, whereas by comparison the actions of those with the training, qualifications and statutory responsibility have been relatively immune from critical examination.   The Panel may wish to consider 
  • whether this apparent disparity in critical attention may be driven by any wider motive.
  • I note that the panel has an interest in the apparent leak of some of the views of BDO Alto to a journalist known to be hostile to the Abuse Enquiry.   This leak occurred long before I even knew of the existence of the BDO Alto report, and I can offer nothing specific in relation to that matter.   However, on the wider issue of “spin” and its relationship to the report I have some brief observations to make.   Earlier this year I followed from a distance the debate in the States and elsewhere relating to how Jersey could reconcile itself with such a difficult period of its past and the best means of seeking closure.   At some stage in these discussions, prominence was given to aspects of the financial management of the abuse enquiry, and attention shifted away from the systematic abuse of vulnerable children in States establishments, and towards detailed examination of bills in a London restaurant.   This agenda-shift appeared to be well supported by Jersey Government representatives and significant sections of the Jersey media.   I do not know if this development was a consequence of deliberate “spin” on behalf of the Jersey Authorities and their media allies, but such an action would be entirely consistent with the earlier leak of aspects of the BDO Alto report to the media which the Panel is now examining.   Whatever the motive, the consequence of the agenda-shift was once again to encourage public debate to focus on the abuse enquiry, and away from the actual abuse.
  • I hope that these comments are of value to the Panel.   





Graham Power.

5th July 2011.

North Yorkshire.





BDO -18




A submission by the States of Jersey Police




An Extraordinary Submission by any standards




Just what was going on down at the "SOJP" under Warcup & Gradwell




Enter Channel Television 




CTV - Must now asked to give evidence in my opinion




All will be Explained




The full submission can be read here. For now im just concentrating on the answers given below.





SCRUTINY SOJP






Remember - D/Supt Mick Gradwell had nothing to do with the BDO Report. You must remember this when reading the answers given in the SOJP submission and balance that against his alleged conduct. Was he Interviewed as a witness? 



Here are the main parts of the Submission from the SOJP that can be found on Scrutiny


My Comment can be found in Blue




1. " The fact that the SIO subject of significant criticism in the report was not interviewed by BDO Alto nor given the opportunity to respond to the findings in the report"


The former Acting Chief Officer, David Warcup, has been contacted to try to clarify this point. He has explained that his reason for not allowing Mr Kelllett to speak with Mr Harper during the course of the BDO Alto review was in order not to prejudice the ongoing "Wiltshire Enquiry" being conducted by Mr Moore.



My Comment - So, does this stack up? There are better legal minds out their than mine. As you can see from the full submission the Wiltshire Finance Investigation was different to the BDO Review so what was the problem.  Does   "not to prejudice the ongoing "Wiltshire Enquiry" " cut it? In my opinion I think Warcup is clutching at straws on that one. 


Why is the Deputy Chief Officer Barry Taylor having to check with Warcup about the justification for this decision? Isn't it recorded on any policy file? Surely this is a key decision and would have been recorded.


Were Wiltshire or the Home Affairs Minister consulted on this decision? If they were  is their evidence of this consultation?




Mr Warcup has indicated that he is fully prepared to answer any questions the Scrutiny Panel may have about this aspect of the review. He is not prepared for his contact details to be disclosed, but is content for any approach to be made via the SOJP. No one else has knowledge around this.



2, " The BDO Alto Report refers to confidential statements made by the SIO to the Wiltshire enquiry , while the SIO himself has been refused a copy of his own statement."



This is a matter that will need to be referred to Wiltshire Constabulary. The states of Jersey Police have no locus over this matter



My Comment - This matter has been referred to the Wiltshire Constabulary and they have said - no part of Lenny Harpers Confidential Statement was disclosed to BDO Alto.  So, did someone have access to that Statement in Jersey and did they let Mr Kellett have a look? Only Mr Kellett and BDO can answer this question regarding Mr Harpers Confidential Statement 




3. "An Interim report by financial auditors was leaked to the Mail on Sunday in October 2009, eight months before the report was submitted to the Minister and was used in a highly critical report on the conduct of the Haut  del a Garenne inquiry. It appears that a senior police officer was responsible for this leak"



It is understood that the likely content of the BDO Alto report was discussed with the Home Affairs Accounting Officer , A/CO Warcup, Mr M Kellett and D/Supt M Gradwell during 2009 in order that further work could continue towards  a final report.


D/Supt M Gradwell left Jersey in August 2009 and retired from the police service on 2nd September 2009 . Prior to leaving and unknown to the States authorities , Mr Gradwell gave a number of press briefings , it is evident that Mr Gradwell made verbal reference to extracts from the BDO Alto report on financial matters.  This was Wholly improper and less than helpful to the ongoing enquiry.


This matter was reviewed at the time and there is no evidence of any 'physical' disclosure of any report.


Mr Gradwell is on public record as accepting that he quoted information from notes later incorporated in the report, but he vehemently denies  'leaking' a copy of a report to the media.


Mr Gradwell has also been contacted and is aware of the impending Scrutiny Panel Review. It is likely that he will make a written submission to the Panel. He does not wish his contact details to be disclosed.  


There has been no formal investigation into the 'alleged leak' . It was apparent from an earky stage that references made by Mr Gradwell to the press came from the draft report.


Having left Jersey and retired from the police service in England, it is not possible to take matters further outside of Jersey's jurisdiction



 My comment - Ok, now we come to D/Supt Mick Gradwell - What was his role in the BDO Alto Report?


The SOJP state - "Mr Gradwell is on public record as accepting that he quoted information from notes later incorporated in the report, but he vehemently denies  'leaking' a copy of a report to the media"


And in the next breath the SOJP state - "There has been no formal investigation into the 'alleged leak' . It was apparent from an earky stage that references made by Mr Gradwell to the press came from the draft report"




NOW IF THATS NOT A PHYSICAL LEAK THEN WHAT IS



THIS IS COMICAL



Remember


"D/Supt M Gradwell left Jersey in August 2009 and retired from the police service on 2nd September 2009 . Prior to leaving and unknown to the States authorities , Mr Gradwell gave a number of press briefings , it is evident that Mr Gradwell made verbal reference to extracts from the BDO Alto report on financial matters.  This was Wholly improper and less than helpful to the ongoing enquiry."



"Verbal References"




I have checked the Two Award Winning Entries by CTV where they Interviewed Mick Gradwell as seen below. What I find really amazing is that Mick  Gradwell doesn't mention anything from the BDO Alto Report  NO VERBAL REFERENCES  - Guess who does?  Yup, it's the Reporter.  




These CTV  News Shows  went out on the 1st and 3rd September 2009




How is the CTV Reporter quoting from the BDO Report?





I have been looking at the Gradwell Interview it looks far to professional alongside the normal CTV effort. This was a well orchestrated, look at the camera angels and lighting, plus not one sound from the Interviewer, this is so he could get more air time. This looks like it could have come straight from the Chief Ministers Communication Unit.  How has the CTV interviewer obtained this leaked report? All looking just a little to cosy with an award to top it all off. It has all the hallmarks of a journalistic 'puff' 



Timeline;



January 2009 - Ministerial Decision to hold a Financial Review




September 1st & 3rd - CTV News quote BDO Report & Interview Mick Gradwell

  




September 29th 2009 - BDO send Home Affairs Engagement Letter








October 4th 2009 - David Rose does a big article that can leave no one in doubt that he had seen a leaked "Interim Report"





May 2010 - Home Affairs Minister releases report





Did Mick Gradwell give David Rose an Interview Whilst SIO of the "HCAE" he must be asked this question? Well the answer is yes. The link is below



The "HCAE" was still live what the feck was going on. Why was a Child Abuse Denier Journalist being courted by the States of Jersey Police during a live Investigation



David Rose quotes Gradwell and Warcup 




 If you read this Article from David Rose Dated November 15th 2008 he is interviewing Mick Gradwell




NOVEMBER 15TH 2008




If not Warcup,  was Mick Gradwell totally out of control down at the "SOJP" 



Or was someone else pulling the strings?



Rico Sorda





ACO  DAVID WARCUP




BDO 19




The Hard work starts paying off





An Astonishing Submission by the former Acting Chief Police Officer David Warcup 





BDO Alto & Mike Kellett give evidence before the Scrutiny Panel - Their evidence is staggering,  among other things  it contradicts  everything  David Warcup say's in his submission




Senator ILM came before the Scrutiny panel looking a little puzzled he  left totally dazed.  The Senator came with nothing - he couldn't  answer any questions  I  believe it's  fair to say he was totally clueless as to what's been going on?.  The impression I got from him was that he was really struggling with Dave Warcup's submission and the evidence given by BDO.  The Senator always thought he was in the loop, reality hurts.




Accounting Officer Steve Austin Vautier came in last - He mentioned Child Genocide -  I had visions of being in the killing fields of Cambodia. I was so drained at this point that I will wait for the transcripts to appear online.



The Only person who hasn't given or submitted evidence is D/Supt Mick Gradwell



This posting is concentrating on the Submission of David Warcup - There are problems very serious problems.



It's important to get familiar with what ACO  David Warcup is referring to before we  look at the answers given by Mike Kellett and BDO.



What we have is total confusion down the 'SOJP'



D/Supt Mick Gradwell  openly talking to and leaking information to Daily Mail Journalist David Rose, showing evidence to Abuse Survivors, showing evidence to the BBC that appeared on TV, the infamous November 12th 2008 press conference and doing the award winning CTV news stories. This was the SIO of the Child Abuse Investigation - None of this was pro -active towards the Historic Child Abuse Investigation. Lenny Harper & Graham Power are getting nailed for exposing decades long Child Abuse.



What exactly did D/Supt Mick Gradwell bring to the HCAE?




Then we have the BDO Alto Report




Confusion reigns supreme 




Does anyone make file notes? or record meetings down at the 'SOJP' 



This Submission reflects a chaotic situation in which individuals (none of them cheap) are tasked to do overlapping reports  Confusion develops, no one knows what's going on.  David Warcup believes Mike Kellett is brought in to work on a review for the SOJP not the BDO Alto report.  Mike Kellett says he was brought in to do the BDO Alto report and has never seen the terms of reference highlighted in blue in the David Warcup submission ref - the SOJP review.  


When David Warcup says he is blocking Mike Kellett from speaking to Lenny Harper he is referring to the SOJP review and, I repeat, not the BDO Alto report.  David Warcup is stating that he never stopped Mike Kellett from interviewing Lenny Harper regarding BDO Alto or did he?


What we are uncovering is a complete and utter shambles.  The SOJP force was in turmoil under Warcup & Gradwell  concerning the HCAE and they didn't even have to deal with the most hectic months of Operation Rectangle.  The actions of Mick Gradwell, I believe, are so serious that it must surely cast doubt on the integrity of his position as senior investigating officer of Jersey's 'HCAE' and the future committee of enquiry



Mike Kellett and BDO Alto don't agree with the Warcup Submission 




Senator ILM - just doesn't know what to make of the situation 










Submission by ACO Dave Warcup





Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel 


Issues surrounding the review of financial management of Operational Rectangle 





Dear Mr Pitman, 


I refer to your letter dated 5th July 2011 setting out the agreed terms of reference for the above review by the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel.  


Background 


On the 4 August 2008 I was appointed Deputy Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police and assumed strategic oversight for the police investigation into allegations of Child Abuse, an enquiry which was known as Operation Rectangle.  


In August 2008 I requested the Metropolitan Police to carry out a review of the enquiry known as Operation Rectangle. In September 2008 the Metropolitan Police began their review of the investigation. 


In September 2008 Detective Superintendent Mick Gradwell was seconded from the UK to the States of Jersey Police and appointed as the Senior Investigating Officer for Operation Rectangle. 




In the weeks following my appointment I became concerned regarding a range of matters concerning the conduct of the enquiry. These matters were raised with the then Chief Officer, Mr Graham Power and subsequently with the then Chief Executive of the States of Jersey, Mr Bill Ogley. 



On the 12 November 2008 Mr Power was suspended and I was appointed Acting Chief Officer.  



On 1 December 2008 Mr Brian Moore, Chief Constable of Wiltshire was appointed to  undertake a misconduct investigation. In 2010 the findings of the investigation were reported in; ‘Operation HAVEN’  An independent disciplinary investigation by Wiltshire Police following the suspension of Chief Officer Graham POWER of the States of Jersey Police on 12 November 2008.   



Examination of the report clearly identifies a number of issues which are relevant to the considerations of the scrutiny panel. I would draw attention to those matters which relate to the governance of the enquiry. Due to the lack of any formal governance I took steps to rectify this position and to ensure that recognised investigative standards were applied. This included establishing a Strategic Coordinating Group (Gold Group) and agreeing 


Terms of Reference for the different aspects of work which were undertaken in connection with the enquiry. 



Scrutiny Panel terms of Reference. 


To examine the instructions under which BDO Alto was engaged to review the financial management of Operation Rectangle and their methods for gathering evidence for this review; 


On 15 January 2010 the Minister for Home Affairs and the Home Affairs Accounting 

Officer, instructed BDO Alto Ltd. Jersey, to undertake an independent review, the terms of reference for which were: 


‘To examine and consider the following in respect of the HCAE investigation: 


- The costs associated with personnel, to include overtime costs as well as accommodation, travel and subsistence; 


- The costs associated with all external supplies and services; 


- The internal governance arrangements that existed within States of Jersey Police to ensure the effective management control and the efficient and effective use of 

resources.’ 




To clarify the connection between the BDO Alto review and the review on the same matter separately commissioned by the Acting Chief Officer of Police; 


The review conducted by BDO Alto was commissioned by the Home Affairs Department and not the States of Jersey Police. The separate review commissioned by myself as the Acting Chief Officer was not a review of the same issues as those under review by BDO Alto Ltd. The assumption that they were the same as stated in the terms of reference is therefore wrong. 


In December 2008 the Chief Officer, Home Affairs Department, Mr Steven Austin-Vautier advised the (Police) Strategic Coordinating Group, (Gold) of the intention to carry out the external (audit) review.  


At the same time separate proposals were considered by the Strategic Coordinating Group; ‘to conduct a formal review into miscellaneous matters concerning Operational Rectangle.  


In addition separate terms of reference were agreed for the criminal investigation of 

allegations of child abuse, known as Operation Rectangle. 


For clarity therefore a number of reviews and investigations were commissioned, namely; 



i) The enquiry by Wiltshire Police.


ii) The investigation of criminal matters of historic abuse, known as Operation Rectangle. 


iii) The external review by BDO Alto Ltd. 


iv) The review by the Metropolitan Police of Operation Rectangle. 


v) The internal review by the States of Jersey Police (SOJP). 



In each case separate terms of reference were agreed. 


With regard to item v), as highlighted previously proposals for an internal review by the SOJP were considered by the Strategic Coordinating Group and the following ‘Purpose and Terms of Reference’ were agreed. 



‘The purpose of the review was; ‘to carry out a formal internal review into matters which currently do not fall within the parameters of the current historic abuse enquiry or other related investigations or review. The aim is to identify issues which have been identified during the course of the enquiry or have come to light as a result of complaints, which;- 





a) Give rise for concern in relation to the overall conduct of the enquiry. 


b) Have been raised as a matter of complaint either internally, or by members of the 

public. 


c) Have come to light as a result of information and intelligence received. 


d) Are likely to be of relevance to any future public enquiry. 


e) Are likely to form the basis of questions from states members in relation to their 

accountability function. 


f) Relate to matters which will assist in demonstrating the openness and transparency of the States of Jersey Police in respect of the overall conduct of the enquiry.’ 





It will be noted that the agreed purpose and terms of reference recognise the existence of other inquiries and reviews.  


In addition to agreeing the purpose and terms of reference, it was also agreed that an individual would be appointed to carry out the review under the supervision of Detective Superintendent Gradwell. Subsequently Mr Mike Kellet was appointed to fulfill this role.  


In subsequent discussions with Mr Steven Austin Vautier it was agreed that Mr Gradwell and Mr Kellet would assist the staff from BDO Alto in relation to matters of ‘police procedure and practice.’  It should be noted that Mr Kellet was engaged to carry out work for the SOJP in accordance with the terms of reference prescribed by the Strategic Coordinating Group, under the direct supervision of Mr Gradwell. Their role in relation to the work commissioned by the Home Affairs Department was limited to providing assistance. 




4 

To identify the reasons why the Senior Investigating Officer for Operation Rectangle was not interviewed during the review and was not given the opportunity to respond to the report’s findings; 



The work conducted by BDO Alto was commissioned by the Home Affairs Department. I am therefore unable to shed any further light on the fact that Mr Harper was not given the opportunity to respond to the reports findings. 


For the sake of completeness it may help the Scrutiny Panel to highlight the following which may clarify why certain issues have become conflated. 


Throughout the review by BDO Alto and the Internal Review I maintained a position based on legal advice and experience that the Wiltshire Enquiry should take primacy over other investigations and that no action should be taken which would prejudice, or undermine that enquiry. The only exception would be in the event that criminal offences were identified where the States of Jersey Police would assume primacy.  


During the course of the internal SOJP review I became aware that either Mr Gradwell or Mr Kellet had apparently agreed with BDO Alto Ltd. that there should be a joint report produced in response to the Internal Review commissioned by myself and the Review by BDO Alto Ltd.  I had not approved this, nor was it in accordance with the agreed terms of reference. 


In meetings initially with Mr Gradwell and subsequently with Mr Kellet I made my position clear that I had not commissioned a joint report, nor did I consider such an approach appropriate. Furthermore having seen sections of the draft reports prepared by Mr Kellet there were matters which I considered were more relevant to the Wiltshire Enquiry particularly as they concerned Mr Power. Having considered aspects of the draft report I was also concerned at the methodology adopted, namely that evidence was used to reach conclusions despite the fact that key witnesses had not been deposed in writing. 


It is fully accepted that Mr Kellet requested permission to interview the former Deputy Chief Officer Mr Harper prior to the completion of the report. Based on what I have previously described and on the basis of the advice I received from Mr Moore I did not think it was appropriate for him to do so as a result of which I told Mr Kellet not to interview Mr Harper at that time. 


Indeed I did not feel it was appropriate for Mr Kellet to carry out any further work as my original instructions had not been complied with and the review had become overly focused on Mr Harper, lacked objectivity, had the potential to be unfair to Mr Power and could have seriously undermined the investigation by Wiltshire Police. 


Mr Kellet was unhappy with my decision and expressed concern that some of his findings were likely to be suppressed, albeit he was apparently unaware that his reports had been submitted to Wiltshire Police for consideration and that I had received legal advice based on those reports which raised concern at some of the content. 


I  pointed out to Mr Kellet that there were in addition to those matters identified above further legal and operational considerations which supported my decision not to allow him to interview Mr Harper.  


In summary, therefore, my intervention related to the SOJP internal review and not the BDO Alto report and I am unable to shed any further light on the fact that Mr Harper was not given the opportunity to respond to the reports findings.  




To clarify the liaison between the review of financial management  and the Wiltshire Police Investigation, in particular the references in the BDO Alto report to the Senior Investigating Officer’s statements to Wiltshire Police; 


I am unable to advise the panel what if any liaison took place between BDO Alto and the Wiltshire Enquiry nor can I assist further concerning any statements made by the Senior Investigating Officer. 



6 

To investigate how details of the review into the financial management of Operation Rectangle came to be published in a national newspaper in October 2009; and   • To consider the implications of the Sub Panel’s findings. 


Members of the Scrutiny panel will  recall that there had been considerable disclosure of sensitive material to the media and the public from a variety of sources during 2008 and 2009. Such disclosures are wrong and can constitute an illegal act. I do not and have never condoned or agreed with such disclosures, which only serve to undermine the rule of law and the standards by which public and private organisations should operate. 


With regard to the publication of information in a National newspaper in October 2009 I cannot assist the panel further with this matter. I can assure the panel that I have no knowledge of the leak or whether any documents were made available to the media. The panel will be aware of the extensive verbal disclosures which were made by Mr Gradwell to the media on his departure from Jersey. It will have been noted that within these disclosures reference was made to matters similar to those contained in the BDO Alto report.  



The disclosures by Mr Gradwell to the media on his departure from Jersey were not 

authorised or approved by myself or any other person in the States of Jersey Police. They were made without my knowledge, were inappropriate and could have jeapoardised the objectivity and fairness of the Wiltshire Enquiry. 


It is not within my knowledge who was responsible or what information was given to the media in October 2009. I can state that the States of Jersey police did not approve or authorise any such disclosure. 


I trust that the information provided will assist the Scrutiny panel in its considerations.  


In reviewing these matters I hope the panel will also consider the broader implications of such issues for benefit of good governance in Jersey, good governance which is frequently undermined by the use of information for personal gain, to circumvent the rule of law and to undermine the legitimacy of those who are responsible for the effective administration of the Island. 




Yours sincerely 



David Warcup QPM 




These are some pointers




1. Here is David Warcup telling us  that  Mike Kellett is being called in to do the SOJP Review.  


"In addition to agreeing the purpose and terms of reference, it was also agreed that an individual would be appointed to carry out the review under the supervision of Detective Superintendent Gradwell. Subsequently Mr Mike Kellet was appointed to fulfill this role. " 


"In subsequent discussions with Mr Steven Austin Vautier it was agreed that Mr Gradwell and Mr Kellet would assist the staff from BDO Alto in relation to matters of ‘police procedure and practice.’  It should be noted that Mr Kellet was engaged to carry out work for the SOJP in accordance with the terms of reference prescribed by the Strategic Coordinating Group, under the direct supervision of Mr Gradwell. Their role in relation to the work commissioned by the Home Affairs Department was limited to providing assistance." 



2.  David Warcup did not block BDO Alto from interviewing Lenny Harper


"The work conducted by BDO Alto was commissioned by the Home Affairs Department. I am therefore unable to shed any further light on the fact that Mr Harper was not given the opportunity to respond to the reports findings." 


 He then contradicts Himself


"Throughout the review by BDO Alto and the Internal Review I maintained a position based on legal advice and experience that the Wiltshire Enquiry should take primacy over other investigations and that no action should be taken which would prejudice, or undermine that enquiry. The only exception would be in the event that criminal offences were identified where the States of Jersey Police would assume primacy."  




This whole  Warcup submission when placed against Kellett and BDO leaves me with a mountain of work



Rico Sorda



Team Voice



(for the denver gals)




D/Supt Mick Gradwell - No Evidence Submitted





Who paid Police Consultant Mike Kellett??????






We know who paid the BDO? Was it the Home Affairs Department?






What was CTV involvement? 




We know they broadcast on the 1st and 3rd of September 2009 featuring former D/Supt Mick Gradwell  where he trashed an ongoing Child Abuse Investigation in an unprecedented attack on a fellow Senior Police Officer (Lenny Harper).  This happened one month before the infamous piece by David Rose appeared in the Mail newspaper. The CTV reporter is quoting information that appeared in the BDO Alto Report - Not Mick Gradwell. Who supplied CTV with this information? No one has ever questioned CTV or the Jersey Evening Post  about  their trashing of Operation Rectangle whilst  still a live Child Abuse Investigation.



Rupert Murdoch & Rebeca Brooks have been grilled by the UK equivalent of Jerseys Scrutiny ( Parliamentary select committee) over their paying of senior police officers for information and their cosy relationship with very senior officials.



The Uk has 'Education,Culture & Media Parliamentary Select Committee'  is it now time for Jersey to have the same?  There is no Scrutiny of the Governments Relationship or anybody's relationship with the local mainstream media this now has surely got to change. People lived in fear of Rupert Murdoch's  43% share of the market readership,  the Jersey Evening Post has a 100% of the readership market in comparison.



As part of a recent email exchange with Andy Sibcy of  the JEP I offer you this paragraph from former SIO Lenny Harper. 



"On a lighter note I expect that in view of events in London the JEP will not issue the usual invite to senior police officers to wine dine and watch the Battle of Britain air show from that strategic spot!!"



 I  now offer you the evidence in way of Transcripts of the testimony given by Mathew Corbin (BDO) & Mike Kellett ( outside  police consultant) to the Scrutiny Panel on the 15th July 2011. This must be viewed along side the submission of former Acting Chief Police Officer David Warcup. 





I will let my readers digest this up to date installment o the ever intriguing review of the BDO Review 




For Ref on the below Transcripts




Managing Director of BDO - Mathew Corbin




Police Consultant -  Mike Kellett




Retired D/Supt - Mike Gradwell




Acting Chief Officer - David Warcup




The TOR'S being referred to by Mike Kellett are in the Warcup Submission and marked -  A TO F




Rico Sorda





Team Voice









Dave Warcups submission first



Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel 


Issues surrounding the review of financial management of Operational Rectangle 








Dear Mr Pitman, 


I refer to your letter dated 5th July 2011 setting out the agreed terms of reference for the above review by the Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel.  


Background 


On the 4 August 2008 I was appointed Deputy Chief Officer, States of Jersey Police and assumed strategic oversight for the police investigation into allegations of Child Abuse, an enquiry which was known as Operation Rectangle.  


In August 2008 I requested the Metropolitan Police to carry out a review of the enquiry known as Operation Rectangle. In September 2008 the Metropolitan Police began their review of the investigation. 


In September 2008 Detective Superintendent Mick Gradwell was seconded from the UK to the States of Jersey Police and appointed as the Senior Investigating Officer for Operation Rectangle. 


1 


In the weeks following my appointment I became concerned regarding a range of matters concerning the conduct of the enquiry. These matters were raised with the then Chief Officer, Mr Graham Power and subsequently with the then Chief Executive of the States of Jersey, Mr Bill Ogley. 



On the 12 November 2008 Mr Power was suspended and I was appointed Acting Chief Officer.  



On 1 December 2008 Mr Brian Moore, Chief Constable of Wiltshire was appointed to  undertake a misconduct investigation. In 2010 the findings of the investigation were reported in; ‘Operation HAVEN’  An independent disciplinary investigation by Wiltshire Police following the suspension of Chief Officer Graham POWER of the States of Jersey Police on 12 November 2008.   



Examination of the report clearly identifies a number of issues which are relevant to the considerations of the scrutiny panel. I would draw attention to those matters which relate to the governance of the enquiry. Due to the lack of any formal governance I took steps to rectify this position and to ensure that recognised investigative standards were applied. This included establishing a Strategic Coordinating Group (Gold Group) and agreeing 


Terms of Reference for the different aspects of work which were undertaken in connection with the enquiry. 



Scrutiny Panel terms of Reference. 


To examine the instructions under which BDO Alto was engaged to review the financial management of Operation Rectangle and their methods for gathering evidence for this review; 


On 15 January 2010 the Minister for Home Affairs and the Home Affairs Accounting 

Officer, instructed BDO Alto Ltd. Jersey, to undertake an independent review, the terms of reference for which were: 


‘To examine and consider the following in respect of the HCAE investigation: 


- The costs associated with personnel, to include overtime costs as well as accommodation, travel and subsistence; 


- The costs associated with all external supplies and services; 


- The internal governance arrangements that existed within States of Jersey Police to ensure the effective management control and the efficient and effective use of 

resources.’ 




To clarify the connection between the BDO Alto review and the review on the 

same matter separately commissioned by the Acting Chief Officer of Police; 


The review conducted by BDO Alto was commissioned by the Home Affairs Department and not the States of Jersey Police. The separate review commissioned by myself as the Acting Chief Officer was not a review of the same issues as those under review by BDO Alto Ltd. The assumption that they were the same as stated in the terms of reference is therefore wrong. 


In December 2008 the Chief Officer, Home Affairs Department, Mr Steven Austin-Vautier advised the (Police) Strategic Coordinating Group, (Gold) of the intention to carry out the external (audit) review.  


At the same time separate proposals were considered by the Strategic Coordinating Group; ‘to conduct a formal review into miscellaneous matters concerning Operational Rectangle.  


In addition separate terms of reference were agreed for the criminal investigation of 

allegations of child abuse, known as Operation Rectangle. 


For clarity therefore a number of reviews and investigations were commissioned, namely; 



i) The enquiry by Wiltshire Police.


ii) The investigation of criminal matters of historic abuse, known as Operation Rectangle. 


iii) The external review by BDO Alto Ltd. 


iv) The review by the Metropolitan Police of Operation Rectangle. 


v) The internal review by the States of Jersey Police (SOJP). 



In each case separate terms of reference were agreed. 


With regard to item v), as highlighted previously proposals for an internal review by the SOJP were considered by the Strategic Coordinating Group and the following ‘Purpose and Terms of Reference’ were agreed. 



‘The purpose of the review was; ‘to carry out a formal internal review into matters which currently do not fall within the parameters of the current historic abuse enquiry or other related investigations or review. The aim is to identify issues which have been identified during the course of the enquiry or have come to light as a result of complaints, which;- 



a) Give rise for concern in relation to the overall conduct of the enquiry. 


b) Have been raised as a matter of complaint either internally, or by members of the 

public. 


c) Have come to light as a result of information and intelligence received. 


d) Are likely to be of relevance to any future public enquiry. 


e) Are likely to form the basis of questions from states members in relation to their 

accountability function. 


f) Relate to matters which will assist in demonstrating the openness and transparency of the States of Jersey Police in respect of the overall conduct of the enquiry.’ 


It will be noted that the agreed purpose and terms of reference recognise the existence of other inquiries and reviews.  


In addition to agreeing the purpose and terms of reference, it was also agreed that an individual would be appointed to carry out the review under the supervision of Detective Superintendent Gradwell. Subsequently Mr Mike Kellet was appointed to fulfill this role.  


In subsequent discussions with Mr Steven Austin Vautier it was agreed that Mr Gradwell and Mr Kellet would assist the staff from BDO Alto in relation to matters of ‘police procedure and practice.’  It should be noted that Mr Kellet was engaged to carry out work for the SOJP in accordance with the terms of reference prescribed by the Strategic Coordinating Group, under the direct supervision of Mr Gradwell. Their role in relation to the work commissioned by the Home Affairs Department was limited to providing assistance. 




4 

To identify the reasons why the Senior Investigating Officer for Operation Rectangle was not interviewed during the review and was not given the opportunity to respond to the report’s findings; 



The work conducted by BDO Alto was commissioned by the Home Affairs Department. I am therefore unable to shed any further light on the fact that Mr Harper was not given the opportunity to respond to the reports findings. 


For the sake of completeness it may help the Scrutiny Panel to highlight the following which may clarify why certain issues have become conflated. 


Throughout the review by BDO Alto and the Internal Review I maintained a position based on legal advice and experience that the Wiltshire Enquiry should take primacy over other investigations and that no action should be taken which would prejudice, or undermine that enquiry. The only exception would be in the event that criminal offences were identified where the States of Jersey Police would assume primacy.  


During the course of the internal SOJP review I became aware that either Mr Gradwell or Mr Kellet had apparently agreed with BDO Alto Ltd. that there should be a joint report produced in response to the Internal Review commissioned by myself and the Review by BDO Alto Ltd.  I had not approved this, nor was it in accordance with the agreed terms of reference. 


In meetings initially with Mr Gradwell and subsequently with Mr Kellet I made my position clear that I had not commissioned a joint report, nor did I consider such an approach appropriate. Furthermore having seen sections of the draft reports prepared by Mr Kellet there were matters which I considered were more relevant to the Wiltshire Enquiry particularly as they concerned Mr Power. Having considered aspects of the draft report I was also concerned at the methodology adopted, namely that evidence was used to reach conclusions despite the fact that key witnesses had not been deposed in writing. 


It is fully accepted that Mr Kellet requested permission to interview the former Deputy Chief Officer Mr Harper prior to the completion of the report. Based on what I have previously described and on the basis of the advice I received from Mr Moore I did not think it was appropriate for him to do so as a result of which I told Mr Kellet not to interview Mr Harper at that time. 


Indeed I did not feel it was appropriate for Mr Kellet to carry out any further work as my original instructions had not been complied with and the review had become overly focused on Mr Harper, lacked objectivity, had the potential to be unfair to Mr Power and could have seriously undermined the investigation by Wiltshire Police. 


Mr Kellet was unhappy with my decision and expressed concern that some of his findings were likely to be suppressed, albeit he was apparently unaware that his reports had been submitted to Wiltshire Police for consideration and that I had received legal advice based on those reports which raised concern at some of the content. 


I  pointed out to Mr Kellet that there were in addition to those matters identified above further legal and operational considerations which supported my decision not to allow him to interview Mr Harper.  


In summary, therefore, my intervention related to the SOJP internal review and not the BDO Alto report and I am unable to shed any further light on the fact that Mr Harper was not given the opportunity to respond to the reports findings.  




To clarify the liaison between the review of financial management  and the Wiltshire Police Investigation, in particular the references in the BDO Alto report to the Senior Investigating Officer’s statements to Wiltshire Police; 


I am unable to advise the panel what if any liaison took place between BDO Alto and the Wiltshire Enquiry nor can I assist further concerning any statements made by the Senior Investigating Officer. 



6 

To investigate how details of the review into the financial management of Operation Rectangle came to be published in a national newspaper in October 2009; and 


• To consider the implications of the Sub Panel’s findings. 


Members of the Scrutiny panel will  recall that there had been considerable disclosure of sensitive material to the media and the public from a variety of sources during 2008 and 2009. Such disclosures are wrong and can constitute an illegal act. I do not and have never condoned or agreed with such disclosures, which only serve to undermine the rule of law and the standards by which public and private organisations should operate. 


With regard to the publication of information in a National newspaper in October 2009 I cannot assist the panel further with this matter. I can assure the panel that I have no knowledge of the leak or whether any documents were made available to the media. The panel will be aware of the extensive verbal disclosures which were made by Mr Gradwell to the media on his departure from Jersey. It will have been noted that within these disclosures reference was made to matters similar to those contained in the BDO Alto report.  



The disclosures by Mr Gradwell to the media on his departure from Jersey were not 

authorised or approved by myself or any other person in the States of Jersey Police. They were made without my knowledge, were inappropriate and could have jeapoardised the objectivity and fairness of the Wiltshire Enquiry. 


It is not within my knowledge who was responsible or what information was given to the media in October 2009. I can state that the States of Jersey police did not approve or authorise any such disclosure. 


I trust that the information provided will assist the Scrutiny panel in its considerations.  


In reviewing these matters I hope the panel will also consider the broader implications of such issues for benefit of good governance in Jersey, good governance which is frequently undermined by the use of information for personal gain, to circumvent the rule of law and to undermine the legitimacy of those who are responsible for the effective administration of the Island. 


Yours sincerely 




David Warcup QPM 






STATES OF JERSEY


Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel

Issues surrounding of the Review of Financial

Management of Operation Rectangle


FRIDAY, 15th JULY 2011


Panel:

Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier (Chairman)

Deputy D.J.A. Wimberley of St. Mary

Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier of St. Saviour


Witness:

Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited

Police Consultant


Also present:

 Scrutiny Officer


[11.00]


Deputy T.M. Pitman of St. Helier (Chairman):

Welcome, everyone, to this hearing of what is a Scrutiny Sub-Panel of Education, Sport and Culture and Home Affairs, and welcome to the public as well.  I would just say to the public to please be quiet and respectful while the questioning is going on.  In a moment we will name ourselves for the transcript, for the record, and I would ask the 2 gentlemen here to do the same.  I have to explain the oath, which you should have in front of you, but hopefully you are familiar with it.  The basis of it is that as long as you do not tell us anything that you know not to be true, everything is straightforward and hunky dory.  The media have asked to film us, as you know, which is fine.  I appreciate you 2 do not want to be filmed, and that is quite fine; that is your right.  I think we can move on from there.  We have an hour and a half set aside.  If we finish early, that is fair enough.  We do not normally, so we will see how we go from there. I believe you want to make a brief statement to start.  Is that correct?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

Yes, if we could.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Yes.


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

Really just to provide some context before we get underway.  In March 2009 we were engaged by the Minister and the Accounting Officer for Home Affairs to undertake a review of the use of financial resources during Operation Rectangle, that being the code name for the States of Jersey Police’s investigation into historical child abuse.  It is solely the role of the States of Jersey Police and the prosecuting authorities to investigate the allegations of child abuse and to bring perpetrators to justice.  Our review of the financial aspects of the States of Jersey Police’s investigation is not relevant to those investigations or prosecution processes and they do not in any way inhibit the furtherance of those investigations and prosecutions.  Sadly, it appears necessary to reiterate this point given allegations made on certain internet blogs that our report has somehow been used to discredit the investigation of the historical child abuse and to instead direct attention on to management of the inquiry itself.  We sincerely hope that this scrutiny review process corrects these and other misconceptions relevant to our report.  In terms of the drivers behind our work, all departments of the States of Jersey are subject to ongoing audit and review.  These processes are designed to ensure that taxpayer money is spent wisely and is properly accounted for.  It also enables lessons to be learned to facilitate the continual improvement in the quality of public service while balancing the need to derive value and efficiency from spending.  Our review commissioned in March 2009 was not about the historical child abuse investigation per se.  It was not about criticising anyone as an individual and it was not in any way linked to an inquiry being undertaken by Wiltshire Police.  We were very simply engaged to review and report upon the costs incurred by the States of Jersey Police in their Operation Rectangle investigation, which remained ongoing at that time, and to consider where the rules and procedures governing expenditure were effective and were being properly adhered to.  While Operation Rectangle was a deeply distressing investigation for all of those concerned with it as well as for the Island community generally, it is not the first and it will not be the last complex, distressing and highly emotive investigation that the States of Jersey Police will deal with.  That is their job.  However, the size of Operation Rectangle was unique in Jersey, as was the level of expenditure, and I would add at this stage that the level of spending drew attention from a very early stage from both within and outside of the force.  Our review sought to understand the level and nature of the costs incurred, to consider the robustness of financial governance surrounding that spend, and to make recommendations to assist in the management of the costs of future major police operations.  The States of Jersey Police force is a professional police service.  As a result, and irrespective of the size and nature of any particular investigation, it is necessarily conscious of the need to manage its finances in accordance with financial policies and directions in place.  In this case, there was no instruction to spend outside of established policies and frameworks or to ignore financial controls.  Rather, the Chief Minister made a commitment to provide all necessary resources to the investigation, and by doing that he provided an assurance to the victims, the people of Jersey and the States of Jersey Police that this investigation would not be constrained in any way by a lack of financial resources.  In our opinion, the Chief Minister’s statement did not remove the need for that spending to be properly planned, monitored and reported upon, nor did it provide for the usual rules governing spending to be disregarded.  As a result of our detailed review, we prepared a report that contained a total of 19 recommendations.  This provides a point of reference for Home Affairs and the States of Jersey Police when considering how to implement appropriate financial governance in future major police operations.  That is the background to our review and report and I hope it provides some further context to this Sub-Panel prior to answering your specific questions.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Thank you very much for that and thank you for your written submissions as well.  I should just point out that the Panel is now down to 3 Members, Deputy Tadier having resigned, nothing to do with this particular review.  The 3 of us will jump in with questions as and when points arise.  Could I begin?  You properly(?) explained to us how you understood the task you had been set for that review, but can you enlarge for us how you set about obtaining the evidence you required for your review?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

Yes.  Our review was to, as I have explained, look at the financial spend associated with Operation Rectangle.  That was a live investigation; it had been ongoing since 2007.  The costs of that investigation had become quite significant and the Minister and the Accounting Officers at Home Affairs wanted some assurance that that financial expenditure had been incurred with due regard for value and efficiency from spend and in accordance with the accounting policies and processes that are in place within not just the States of Jersey Police but the States as a whole.  We were formally engaged in March 2009.  The way that we gathered information for our review was primarily from accounting information at Home Affairs.  The Home Affairs Department account for the expenditure of the police force, among other things, so they were able to provide a full data dump of all of the costs relevant to Operation Rectangle, and that was our starting point.  Having categorised the various aspects of the investigation spend, we were able to then start to obtain detailed documentation and evidence to properly interpret firstly what that spend was and secondly that it had been procured in a way that is consistent with the policies and procedures in place in the States of Jersey and in the police force.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Were there any limitations or boundaries set upon you in gathering that evidence?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

No, there were no limitations, sir.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

No limitations.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

Who did you interview?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

During the course of our review, we interviewed a wide range of people.  We interviewed staff within Home Affairs and we also interviewed numerous individuals within States of Jersey Police as well as at least 2 of the contractors involved in the Operation Rectangle investigation. 


The Deputy of St. Mary:

All right.  There is no list, is there, in the report of who you interviewed, who you spoke to?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

No, there is not.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

What other sources did you use, in terms of written sources?  You have mentioned all the costs in the records of Home Affairs.  What other sources did you use?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

This is probably a good time to introduce [Police Consultant] and explain [Police Consultant]’s involvement with this review in terms of evidence-gathering within States of Jersey Police. 


Police Consultant:

I access the investigations database, the H.O.L.M.E.S. (Home Office Large Major Enquiry System), the States of Jersey Police’s internal databases such as email and the related databases.  I interviewed quite a large number of police officers and police staff and other people involved in the investigation.  They provided me with documentation.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Sorry, before [Police Consultant] continues, it might be worth for the benefit of ourselves and people observing if you could explain how you were recruited and what you were recruited to, because we have heard about other reviews going on and we have heard about relationships to Wiltshire or not to Wiltshire.  It is getting quite complex, so could you explain how you were recruited and what reviews you ended up working on and how these reviews related to each other?


Police Consultant:

Yes.  As you know, and I am not sure that the other people here know, I am a former Senior Police Officer.  I retired from the Lancashire Constabulary at the end of 2006, and in early March 2009 I was approached by somebody working in Operation Rectangle and asked if I would be available to speak with [retired D/Superintendent], the then Senior Investigating Officer, with a view to carrying out some review of part of Operation Rectangle.  I agreed to have a telephone conversation with him and as a result of that I came to Jersey and was given some draft terms of reference, as they were at the time.  We discussed whether or not I would be willing to be involved, and I agreed to be.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Sorry, this whole thing sounds slightly mysterious.  You were approached by someone in Operation Rectangle.


Police Consultant:

Yes, just a member of staff whom I knew.  I knew [retired D/Superintendent] before because we had worked together some years ago.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Who did you conclude was the person with authority in these approaches?  Who said: “Yes, we want you and we want you to do this”?  Who said that?


Police Consultant:

Formally, it was the acting Chief Officer at the time, although of course [retired D/Superintendent] was acting on his behalf, and before I was formerly appointed, as I understand it, he went to [then Acting Police Chief].  At that stage he met [then Acting Police Chief].  He went to him and discussed it, and then I was told: “If you are willing to come and work, we are willing to have you.”


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

This was police, then, not Home Affairs at this stage?


Police Consultant:

No, this was the police.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

Can you comment on the terms of reference of that review?


Police Consultant:

The terms of reference that I was given and that I worked to are those that I set out in my written submission, and those were the only terms of reference I was ever given, which are self-explanatory.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

Sorry, can you just refer me to the right page?  They do not match the other terms of reference.  We are on page 2, are we, of your ...


Police Consultant:

That is right.  In paragraph 4 of my written submission, on pages 2 and 3.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

Those terms of reference are in relation to, in effect, the BDO review?


Police Consultant:

Yes.


[11.15]


The Deputy of St. Mary:

So they link up?  They are like a specific subset of what BDO were looking at?


Police Consultant:

I am not sure whether that is the right way exactly of describing it.  BDO clearly had some terms of reference from Home Affairs Department, which are not exactly the same as mine, but clearly, from my terms of reference, the intention was for us to work together, for reasons that have been stated in the written submissions, and my reading of it is that there are some specifics that the States of Jersey Police wished to be looked at in addition to the wider issues that I referred to in my terms of reference and in BDO’s terms of reference.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

So these terms of reference on pages 2 and 3 of your written submission were set by whom?


Police Consultant:

The States of Jersey Police.  I was handed them by [retired D/Superintendent], but I understood at the time that they had been approved by [then Acting Police Chief].


The Deputy of St. Mary:

And you had no input into them?


Police Consultant:

No.  That was what I was given.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

That was your working document.  What I am looking at now is [then Acting Police Chief]’s written submission.  I do not know if you have seen that.


Police Consultant:

I have, yes.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

On page 4 of that there is a completely different review.  Was that related to you?


Police Consultant:

[then Acting Police Chief] says that it was, but the first time I saw those terms of reference was yesterday when [the Scrutiny Officer] forwarded [then Acting Police Chief]’s written submission to me.  The first occasion that I became aware there might be other terms of reference that [then Acting Police Chief] wanted me to work to as well as the terms of reference that are in my written submission was towards the end of July 2009 when I had a meeting with [then Acting Police Chief] and he mentioned these in passing.  Apparently they had been set by the Gold Group of Operation Rectangle towards the end of 2008.  I was never given them.  I asked [then Acting Police Chief] at the time of the meeting if I could have a copy of them, and he had a look in a file and could not find them and did not forward them to me subsequently.  As far as I was concerned at the time, before and since, the only terms of reference that I was given were the ones that are set out in my written submission. 


The Deputy of St. Mary:

I can see that.  These are the terms of reference you thought you were working to, and I know it is putting you in a bit of a difficult position, but who appointed you to do the other review with these terms of reference that you only knew about in July 2009?


Police Consultant:

The last time I spoke to [Then Acting Police Chief] was in July 2009.   I have never seen or been given those terms of reference.  Until July 2009, I did not know that there were any other terms of reference.  The only terms of reference that I have been given and that I worked to were those set out in my written submission.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

With due respect, does that not seem a bit incredible?  Does it not bother you?


Police Consultant:

Yes.  It is odd and I cannot really explain it.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Just pursuing that, [Police Consultant], the situation as we find it is that you worked with BDO to their terms of reference.  You then sort of stumbled upon the fact that there was another review taking place, which was an internal police review, and [then Acting Police Chief] offered to brief you but for various reasons the terms never arrived.  Were you aware all the time that this review was going on with other people or was it just some ghost in the background?


Police Consultant:

No.  I do not think your summary is quite correct, if I may say so.  That is not my interpretation of it.  This other review was not taking place.  I think [then Acting Police Chief], clearly from his written submission, intended that as well as assisting BDO Alto in terms of the terms of reference that I was working to and that had been agreed by [then Acting Police Chief], he appears to have believed that I was also working on some specific issues that were internal to States of Jersey Police.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Why do you think he believed that?


Police Consultant:

These terms of reference, as I understand it because of what he told me, had been set in the Gold Group towards the end of 2008, but I was never given them, and I cannot explain why they were set in 2008, I was appointed in March 2009 and I was never given them.  I really have no idea.  When he mentioned them to me in July 2009, that was the first I had ever heard of them.  He was not able to provide me with a copy, did not have a copy of them, and he did not provide me with a copy subsequently.  I did not form the impression at the time that it was a major issue for him.  It was mentioned in passing, in effect.  It did not seem important to him, although it was a great surprise to me.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

Can I ask, then, who you reported to as you were doing your work?


Police Consultant:

I was reporting on a ...  I was going to say “daily basis”.  It is not quite true to say I was reporting on a daily basis.  As and when I was completing elements of the terms of reference that I had been given and producing written documents, I was reporting in effect to [then Acting Police Chief].  I simultaneously sent copies of the work that I was producing to [retired D/Superintendent], the Wiltshire investigation and BDO Alto.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Can I take us back a step?  I asked you if any limitations or boundaries were set and you said no, so could we get to the issue of Mr. Harper and why he was not interviewed?  As I understand it, you attempted to Mr. Harper but access was denied by [then Acting Police Chief].  Could you just enlarge on that for us?


Police Consultant:

The only restriction that was placed on me was that I was not able to see Mr. Harper, and that was not made plain to me at the outset.  I have explained the circumstances in my written submission, how that came to my notice, and as you see from my written submission, I took steps to try to get the decision reversed, unsuccessfully.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Sorry, and for BDO Alto, because you obviously have 2 reports here for BDO?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

Yes.  When we were being engaged to undertake the review, there were no restrictions put on our work.  As our submission states and as [Police Consultant’s] also states, when it came to our request to be allowed to take Mr. Harper’s comment, we were declined access.  At the time of entry into the agreement with Home Affairs to undertake the review, there were no restrictions placed on it, and we were then at a later date basically told that Mr. Harper was out of bounds.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

You said “we” were denied access.  Who is “we”?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

BDO and [Police Consultant], i.e. “we”. 


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

This is the issue, is it not?  In [then Acting Police Chief]’s submission he is saying quite clearly and quite strongly that [Police Consultant] was denied access from the police side of it but there was no reason why BDO should not speak to him.


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

This is unfortunately where we have to look at where each person was sitting and what was seen by that party at the time.  At the time of our appointment it was very clear that [Police Consultant] was working with us to produce this report.  We are a firm of accountants; we do not have intimate knowledge of how police operations are run, and therefore it would have been very difficult to make any reasoned comment and prepare reasoned analysis without the input of an experienced police officer, hence [Police Consultant]’s involvement.  We saw [Police Consultant]’s same terms of reference that he had been provided with at that point in time, and from that point in time, 2nd April, I think we first sat down with [Police Consultant] and started working together.  It was on the basis that BDO were undertaking financial analysis that [Police Consultant] was assisting BDO in interpreting that numerical data, and was as part of that task interviewing officers and civilian staff within States of Jersey Police.  We then requested or, rather, notified Home Affairs, and it was covered in an email on 28th May 2009 that we sent to Home Affairs saying: “It is hoped that [Police Consultant] will be able to meet with Mr. Harper as part of this process if he is permitted to do so by the Chief Officer, and also assuming that Mr. Harper agrees to be spoken to.”  We did at the time not know for sure whether Mr. Harper would be amenable to be spoken to, and therefore we also said: “Whether or not the Mr. Harper meeting occurs, we would intend to present a full draft of the report to you [Accounting Officer, Home Affairs] in the future.”


The Deputy of St. Mary:

Who did that email go from to?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

It went from BDO to Home Affairs.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

BDO to Home Affairs?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

Yes.  Sorry, just to complete, from BDO’s perspective and from Home Affairs’ perspective, it was very clear that the only person who was going to interview Mr. Harper was going to be [Police Consultant], and it was on that basis that [Police Consultant] then approached [then Acting Police Chief] and asked for permission to meet and make contact with Mr. Harper.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

I may be missing something here.  Why did BDO think that they could not interview Lenny Harper?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

We could only interview any police officer or, for that matter, retired police officer with the permission of the Chief Officer, because this a live police investigation and Mr. Harper’s confidentiality obligations did not disappear just because he retired from the States of Jersey Police.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I wonder if we can follow up with [Police Consultant], because we have had these exchanges of emails between yourself and [then Acting Police Chief].  What we read in [then Acting Police Chief]’s statement from as recently as yesterday is that he was talking to you simply, as my colleague said, about the States of Jersey internal report.  Did you think you were doing that or did you think you were talking about the BDO report?


Police Consultant:

The BDO report, because that, as far I was concerned, was the only role I had been given.  The terms of reference that I was handed when I arrived in Jersey, which are set out in full in my written submission, were quite specific about what my role was.  Clearly, for whatever reason, [then Acting Police Chief] thought that I had been given in addition ...  He certainly had never made any effort to give me any other terms of reference, but I assume that he thought that I had been given these other terms of reference that he mentioned in his written submission of yesterday.  I cannot answer why I was not given those terms of reference.  As I said, if I can repeat, the first time I saw those terms of reference was yesterday, and the first time I heard of any possibility that there may be other terms of reference was towards the end of July 2009, 4 months after I had started work with BDO. 


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

But surely there must have been alarm bells ringing, because it seemed unbelievable that in a major investigation, one person had been identified as (shall we call in inverted commas) the “main accused” and yet that person was not going to be interviewed.  Surely both yourselves and [then Acting Police Chief] must have been incredulous that this apparently was going to happen.


Police Consultant:

First of all, if I can just respond.  Nobody was identified as accused.  A review of a major investigation is not about accusing anybody.  As the terms of reference for the ones I was given and the ones BDO Alto were given make it very clear, the idea of the review is to learn lessons and to make recommendations for the future, and not just learn lessons about bad things that happen but identify good practice.  A review is to look at an investigation in the whole, so nobody is accused.  Mr. Harper was not accused of anything in the report that we submitted.  Now, there was no reason for alarm bells to ring with me, because I was working to the terms of reference that I had been given.  Now, I was concerned that I was being denied access to Mr. Harper, and my concerns are set down, I think in very plain terms, in my written submission.  Yes, I am concerned, and I am still bemused as to why I was denied access.


[11.30]


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Can we move that sideways slightly?  In [then Acting Police Chief]’s representation, which you have obviously seen, he says that he never agreed or approved this joint report, which eventually came out.  If I could just quote him directly, where he says: “Indeed, I did not feel it was appropriate for [Police Consultant] to carry out any further work as my original instructions had not been complied with and the review had become overly focused on Mr. Harper, lacked objectivity, had the potential to be unfair to [former Police Chief] and could have seriously undermined the investigation by Wiltshire Police.”  What is your reaction to that statement?  Because it does seem a very strong one.


Police Consultant:

Yes.


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

Yes.  I mean, we were very surprised by that statement.  I think, to put things back into context again, the only material that [then Acting Police Chief] was seeing at the time were working notes being prepared by [Police Consultant].  That is all he was seeing.  He, to my knowledge, did not see a final draft of the report that was issued.  There is a huge amount of work that was done that does not feature in the final report that was issued in terms of all the conversations that were had with various people.  So, if you like, sitting behind that final report is a huge amount of verification and evidence, and part of that evidence were the notes being produced by [Police Consultant], so that is the first point.  In terms of [then Acting Police Chief]’s comment, I do not think that his comments are directly relevant to the financial review that was ongoing.  I think, unfortunately, for whatever reason, [then Acting Police Chief] does not appear to have been aware of the terms of reference under which [Police Consultant] was working in assisting us, and therefore his views possibly relate to the work that he thought [Police Consultant] was undertaking for him.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

This is something that is really bothering me.  Let us go back to the beginning, if you like.  What did BDO think was the working relationship between yourselves and [Police Consultant]?  Maybe you tell us first and then [Police Consultant] does.  What is going on?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

From our perspective, it was the case that [Police Consultant] had been brought in by States of Jersey Police.  He was sitting in his own office within the police headquarters and had access to the police investigation system and the records, and as a senior ex-policeman he was able to interpret the information and provide a means of filtering the information that was relevant to our financial review to us.  He was also, given his expertise as a senior policeman, able to have conversations with serving officers as well as States of Jersey Police civilian staff.  That information formed part of the total evidence and information that we used to put our review report together.  We also have to remember that this was not an inquiry.  It was not an investigation.  It was a review.  We were simply interested in whether or not financial spend on Operation Rectangle had been done in accordance with all of the usual controls and governance that surrounds any sort of spend within the States of Jersey or within States of Jersey Police, and to summarise what our conclusions were and to make some recommendations to help Home Affairs and the States of Jersey Police in managing that spend going forward.  It is very, very different to an inquiry or an investigation.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

That is a separate point.  I might come back to that, but sticking with the working relationship, I put it to you that one could say that BDO and [Police Consultant] are working very closely together.


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

That is absolutely correct.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

That is absolutely correct, and indeed, paragraph 38 of your written submission, a week after the final engagement terms were not signed: “BDO met with [Police Consultant] and commenced working together.”


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

Yes.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

All right.  I have one other question, which is slightly separate.  This goes back to a conversation we have just had.  Can I just ask whether you agree that it was unfortunate that Lenny Harper was not interviewed?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

It was unfortunate, of course, in that, as we have both indicated in our written submissions, it would have been preferable to have had an opportunity to discuss with Mr. Harper some of the findings that were emerging from our work.  I think we were aware that we were not going to get any further documentary evidence from Mr. Harper, and therefore it would be a case of asking specific questions.  Again, as we have said in our written submission, by not being able to interview Mr. Harper there were certain areas that we had reviewed but were unable to report upon because the documentary evidence that we had obtained was not on its own sufficient to be able to draw a final conclusion and make a recommendation.  So, if you like, the content of the report, the format of the report, was influenced by the fact that we could not speak to him.  Having said that, no information has come to our attention subsequently that would need us to change any of the findings and recommendations as presented.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

You would not put it stronger than that?  You said it “would have been preferable to have an opportunity” to interview Lenny Harper.  You would not put it stronger than that?  We will come back to that later if you maintain that position.


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

Yes.  “Preferable” is the word we ...


The Deputy of St. Mary:

Because there is a view that it would have been essential to absolutely try to see Lenny Harper. 


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

I think, as the written submissions state, we did try to see Lenny Harper, and that unfortunately was declined, and therefore, when you are undertaking a review you have to accept that and move on.  There was still a job to do in reporting our conclusions. 


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

But we come back to that issue of being declined, where, as a conflict to what [then Acting Police Chief] is now saying, for your side of things, you were not declined.  I still cannot get my head around where this confusion has come in, that [Police Consultant] could not speak to him but you could.  That is essentially what [then Acting Police Chief] is saying.


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

I accept that.  You have to remember that [then Acting Police Chief] and ourselves are talking about different terms of reference.  We are talking about the terms of reference for [Police Consultant], that were handed to [Police Consultant] and a copy provided to ourselves, and our instruction from Home Affairs, and we were very clear from the start with Home Affairs, as evidenced by the email communication with them that is included in our submission, that it was going to be [Police Consultant] who was interviewing Mr. Harper on behalf of this review.  That is the basis upon which [Police Consultant] approached [then Acting Police Chief] and permission was declined.  It was not a case of we ask, it gets declined, that is the end of it.  There were a number of conversations and a number of communications seeking him to reconsider that decision. 


The Deputy of St. Mary:

When [Police Consultant] discussed with [then Acting Police Chief] repeatedly: “Please can I interview Mr. Harper?” was that with the full backing of BDO?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

Absolutely.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Just coming back to this, because when one reads your submission there are not contradictions, but there are sort of counter-arguments.  You say you could not get hold of Mr. Harper, you went through the procedures, and putting aside the confusion about what he was being interviewed for, you then put forward, in your submissions from about 31, reasons why you think Mr. Harper would not appear.  For example, he had not appeared with day books when he had been required to appear with them in another location and so forth.  You put these reasons why he probably would not appear.  Did anyone inform you of these happenings, and did they suggest that they were such as to say that Mr. Harper, no matter how much you pleaded with him, was not going to appear?  That is the impression you get from having put these arguments forward.


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

That is not the impression and that is not what we have sought to state in our report.  What we have said is that, firstly, this was not an inquiry or an investigation, and therefore while it would be preferable to speak to Mr. Harper, we were not able to.  Secondly, he was not the subject of this review and he was certainly not singled out for criticism in the report.  Mr. Harper has clearly taken a number of the comments on board, and as the ex-Senior Investigating Officer, that is not surprising, but he was not the subject of this review.  We were declined permission to interview Mr. Harper and we simply, for balance, say that at that point in time it was not totally clear that he would have met us anyway.  It would have been nice to have had the opportunity to ask him, and therefore those points are put in for balance and not to say that he would not have seen us, because clearly we do not know that, and that would only be for Mr. Harper.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

But it is just in this heavily tendentious and polarised interpretation of events that has been in a sense the story up at Haut de la Garenne.  It happens; you have got information here that is quite specific information about why you assume he would appear, and it strikes me, reading this, you would not have got this information walking down ...  Who would have told you this?  This is quite specific.


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

If we are talking with regard to 20(a), as we say, that was an article that was posted on This is Jersey on 22nd August 2009 reporting that Mr. Harper had defied a Royal Court order to return to the Island to give evidence and to produce his day books, and secondly we were quoting from an article that was on Newsdesk International, because, as you know, there was a lot of press at that particular time.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

But do you think (and I will have to stand corrected by [Police Consultant]) given he was a leading participant, it must have left a major hole in your investigations?  And do you really think the fact that he is reported as not having done that was sufficient grounds for you to assume it was necessarily true?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

No, we only put this in as balance to say that at that time he was less talkative, than he is now. 


Police Consultant:

If I can come in on that, there was no assumption on our part that he would not talk to us, but there was obviously some discussion as to whether or not he would, as well as, as [the Managing Director] and I and other people from BDO are also discussing, whether he would or would not, I discussed it with the Wiltshire investigation, because as you see from my written submission, the intention initially was that Wiltshire and I would go and interview, not together as such, but at the same time, because of course we were looking at different things, but we were dealing with many of the same issues.  The intention was that Wiltshire would ask Mr. Harper on my behalf whether or not he was willing to talk to me about the financial and resource issues, but we never got to that stage.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

So you never got an answer because the question was not posed?


Police Consultant:

The question was never put because [then Acting Police Chief] refused authority to go and see him.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

If I can just push that, you state quite clearly that as far as you are concerned, Mr. Harper was not the subject of the review or singled out for criticism.  Nevertheless, he was the Senior Investigating Officer responsible for the key decisions, and he was inevitably going to be the focus for media coverage, and of course he was.  Now, where does that separation of understanding between you and [then Acting Police Chief] begin?  I mean, again I come back to it.  [then Acting Police Chief] is saying that the review had become overly focused on Mr. Harper, lacked objectivity and had the potential to be unfair to [former Police Chief], and could have undermined the Wiltshire investigation.  I just cannot understand, as such, a major review, investigation, call it what you will, could have these misunderstandings.


Police Consultant:

I am just as bemused as you are.  The first time I saw or heard anything along those lines was yesterday when I read [then Acting Police Chief]’s written submission, and I cannot understand why he said those things.  Just to deal with one word there, “objectivity”, I refute that, but in support of that I would quote the Wiltshire findings in relation to the findings of Operation Rectangle in which they say that they have had the benefit of consulting with me and they agree with my conclusions.  There has clearly been a breakdown in communication somewhere within police headquarters centred on [then Acting Police Chief].  I assume [retired D/Superintendent] would have been heavily involved in it, but at the end of the day I cannot say any more other than the only terms of reference I was given were the ones set out in my written submission, and I have never seen any other terms of reference until yesterday when [then Acting Police Chief] sent his written submission.  I can speculate, but there has probably been a surfeit of speculation without sufficient background knowledge and knowledge of facts in this affair already, and I do not really want to speculate on what was in [then Acting Police Chief]’s mind and what went on in his private office.  I think that is probably more a question that is suitable for you to ask him rather than me. 


[11.45]


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

That is fair enough, but you are obviously a very experienced police officer.  In that past experience, have you ever experienced such a situation as is now unfolding, where it seems people do not ...


Police Consultant:

No.  Oh, in terms of breakdowns of communication.  Sorry, I thought you meant in terms of not seeing Mr. Harper.  Breakdowns in communication happen in any organisation, no matter how efficiently it has gone before.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

But in such a major review, you would not expect that, surely, with your experience.


Police Consultant:

I am surprised that [then Acting Police Chief] thought that I was working to  terms of reference that had never been communicated to me.  Yes.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

[Police Consultant], did you have any contact or direction from Home Affairs as distinct from the police?


Police Consultant:

I had contact with Home Affairs, absolutely, quite frequently, but no direction at all.  As I have said, the terms of reference that I worked to were entirely the ones that were given to me, which of course necessitated me having regular contact with Home Affairs.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

Sticking with this question of the non-interview of Lenny Harper, I quote back to you a sentence from your opening statement that I think is absolutely right: “Our review sought to understand the level and nature of costs incurred” and so on.  That is exactly what you need to do in order to achieve what you say is the goal, which is to improve quality of public service and derive value and efficiency from spending, so you have to understand.  How can you have that understanding when you are getting evidence from [Police Consultant], various police officers and interrogation of the H.O.L.M.E.S.  database, but at the end you have a pile of evidence and criticism, really, and the person who authorised the expenditure is not asked?  I just do not see how you can understand the level and nature of costs incurred.


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

The level and nature of costs incurred was able to be analysed based on the financial data and all of the invoices and other documentary evidence that supports it.  The discussions with the officers, with civilian staff, with contractors very much supported that process, but if we put our audit disciplines hat on, then the majority of our evidence is linked to documentary evidence and is also linked to compliance with procedures and financial policies in place, and that was abundantly clear in the majority of cases without recourse to anyone else, and certainly it is not right that any one individual, whoever that is, would be the one person who could answer all of the questions.  That is not how organisations work.  Organisations rely on financial decisions to be documented, for there to be a robust documentary audit trail supporting decisions and supporting individual aspects of spend.  That is what we focused our attention on primarily and that was supported through discussions with other individuals involved in the investigation.  Unfortunately we were unable to see Mr. Harper.  It would have been preferable to see him.  We were not allowed, and therefore we formed our opinions based on all of the other evidence that we had available to us.  It is not appropriate to consider that Mr. Harper was the one person in the whole world who could answer our questions.  That is not the case; he was working as part of a larger team and there were a lot of other senior people involved in this investigation aside from Mr. Harper, so while Mr. Harper as Senior Investigating Officer takes overall command, it is not the case that he is involved in every single piece of detail, much as the C.E.O. (Chief Executive Officer) of a large company is not involved in every piece of detail, so there are lots of other people that you can get that evidence from.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

As I said, we are not here to assess the correctness or otherwise of this expenditure, because we could be here for ever, obviously, if we did that, and as to whether the dog was employed correctly and whether he got better breakfast rates and so forth.  But there is no doubt the political imperative, it appeared, was to get this investigation moving.  Money was poured in; some people feel it was given too unconditionally, and he was the Senior Investigating Officer allowing lines of inquiry to open, thereby in the process allowing large quantities of money to be spent.  Surely his decisions as to the direction of the investigation were bound to have a major impact, given that that quote I have described of “spend what you want”, which is apparently what they were told.  Surely the way in which he took the investigation forward was bound to have major financial consequences, and therefore it was imperative that his thinking be examined.


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

Absolutely, but that thinking should be recorded by way of contemporaneous notes in the various policy files that we reviewed as part of this exercise.  For example, we spent time looking at the financial policy log.  It did not take very long, and that is the point.  One of the strong points that comes through this review is that there was not proper documentation of decisions that were taken from a financial governance perspective.  The policies that were put in place were not routinely followed, and what the investigation lacked fundamentally was a finance manager who, among other things, would have shouldered the burden of financial management and taken that off Mr. Harper, who had enough to be dealing with, quite honestly, without having to be worrying about accounting for particular items of spend on a day to day basis.  The report acknowledges that that person was missing from this investigation team.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

To take that on from the previous point and for the record, how much do you think that was influenced by the probably quite unique setting in Jersey where you have the Home Affairs, the Chief Officer, and then you have the police who have no qualifications, et cetera, as financial managers?  How much do you think that situation came about because, really, it was a fudged setup, it was a deeply flawed setup, as you have acknowledged?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

Yes.  I think we make comments in that in our report.  I believe that the Controller and Auditor General has made comment on this.  It was a difficult set of circumstances for everyone concerned, because of course while the Accounting Officer at Home Affairs has oversight of police finances, he has no operational line of sight, so he has no control or influence over investigations being undertaken by the States of Jersey Police.  On a day to day basis, that is probably manageable on the basis that the States of Jersey Police will have a budget at the beginning of the year and that will be staffing costs and other costs, and therefore it probably runs reasonably well.  As soon as you have a major investigation and a lot of costs being spent very quickly, without having the right financial governance and the right people in place, of course that can become very unstructured and it makes everyone’s lives far more difficult, hence one of our recommendations was that in future major inquiries, a finance manager be appointed.  In fact, the manual that governs how senior investigation officers run police investigations itself says that a finance manager is an integral part of your team.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

For you as a professional forensic accountant, would you, with the benefit of hindsight obviously, say that anyone put in this position would have struggled?  There would almost certainly be problems because it was such an appropriate system, for want of a better word. 


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

It was inappropriate in this situation because there was not sufficient support for Mr. Harper from a financial perspective.  Now, as we have briefly touched on, the rules around who is responsible for the police budget are an aspect of that, and of course Home Affairs did not have huge visibility on the costs on a day to day basis.  The appointment of a finance manager would have assisted with that greatly, and as we point out in the report, it would also have removed the burden from Mr. Harper because the costs that were being incurred in this investigation were very significant and they were covering a very, very wide range of service providers and other costs.  It is just not practical for him to be able to sign off all costs over £1,000, which is what the original policy decision was.  It became completely unmanageable for him, so he did lack support in that area.  Under the Major Incident Room Standard Administrative Procedures, the MIRSAP guidance, he would have appointed a finance manager if not immediately in that investigation then certainly when the investigation became far wider following the discovery of JAR/6, but that did not happen.


Police Consultant:

If I could come in to supplement that, as you have correctly alluded to, the structures as they existed then of financial support and budget control within the States of Jersey and the States of Jersey Police were not adequate to deal with this kind of incident.  However, I think it is important not to overlook the fact that the responsibility to ensure that the spending that was carried out was done so correctly and in accordance with the existing policies was Mr. Harper’s as the Senior Investigating Officer, and the standard administrative procedures that formed part of the policies of States of Jersey Police dictated that he should have appointed a finance manager for the investigation, and he did not.  He appointed other specialists that States of Jersey Police lacked at that time and they still do: specialist dogs to detect bodies.  He appointed somebody to carry out that role, leaving aside for the moment whether or not the person and the dogs and so on were appropriate.  There was a logistics officer appointed because there was not that post in place but it was judged that that kind of support was needed.  Leaving aside, for the moment, some of the issues as to whether or not the logistics officer was used correctly. There should have been a finance manager appointed and there was not, and that is one of the major reasons why expenditure on Operation Rectangle was not kept under control.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Just following that, although not too far (which sounds contradictory) of course he adduces different evidence.  He says he did press people that there should be proper structures, et cetera.  As far as you were aware, [Police Consultant], did Home Affairs step in and say: “Look, this is an incredibly large investigation.  We have got to put some structure.  All the police side with Mr. Harper and we have got to have a finance manager.”  Did you ever feel ... that evidence?  Did you pick up evidence that that was the case?


Police Consultant:

There was a finance manager appointed, but only after Mr. Harper had left.  There was a structure put in place to liaise between the police and the States, the Home Affairs Department, only after Mr. Harper left.  The proper structure that according to the procedures that form part of the States of Jersey Police policy, the Major Incident Room Standard Administrative Procedures and the Murder Investigation Manual, were only implemented after Mr. Harper had left the investigation.  Prior to that, yes, this topic had been raised by people within Home Affairs and from elsewhere, and most of that I think is documented in our report.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

We have changed tack slightly. 


The Deputy of St. Mary:

I want to look at this “understanding the nature of the costs incurred” but from a different angle, because you lay quite a lot of stress in the report on the triggers, the things that led to huge costs going forward, and we know what the triggers were.  I just want to look at the validity, or ask you to comment on the validity of some of your assertions.  We are not now looking at the actual costs, the meals or whatever.  We are looking at what triggered these major expenditures.  On page 8, second column of the fourth bullet point: “However, and for whatever reason, this position changed and on 20th February 2008 we have been told that it was suggested sending Mr. Grimes’ dog into the Haut de la Garenne building for a quick look.”  So, before you point out there was no intention to enter Haut de la Garenne and then you say: “However, and for whatever reason, this position changed.”  The implication of wording it like that is quite clear, that it was suggested sending the dog in for a quick look.  That is the first one.  The second is the piece of wood, the second bullet [point] on page 10, JAR/6, and of course this is a trigger, is it not?  “It was subsequently examined on 31st March by a scientist from the University of Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit, and by a scientist from the British Museum, and was found to be a piece of wood or coconut shell.”  Now, that is a bold statement, and I just want you to comment on the validity of that assertion.  The third one, and I pick out the most controversial or the biggest issues, is the partial remains of a child, and you call this “the significant decision”: “He drafted a press release describing the item as ‘the partial remains of a child’.  While of course at the time this was believed to be literally true, it has been pointed out elsewhere that it was perhaps an unfortunate choice of language, and to describe a piece of material 6.3 by 4.4 cm in such a way and without any qualification might be, in our opinion, regarded as somewhat exaggerated.”  Can you comment on the validity of those 3 statements?


[12:00]


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

I think we are slightly straying off the agenda ...


The Deputy of St. Mary:

No, I ...


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

No, let me carry on.  There is a huge amount of work that sits behind this report.  We did not challenge the operational decision.  The point of writing about the trigger events was to explain why all of a sudden the spending on Operation Rectangle went from being relatively contained to being very, very significant, and the trigger events that caused that were: firstly, the decision to go into the building, because as we say in our report, up until that point in time, the planning for limited excavations in the ground were very well planned and thought out.  There had been meetings in the U.K. (United Kingdom).  They had engaged the experts.  They had obtained quotes.  We have no issue with any of that.  There is a lot of documentation and emails and other material that then discusses whether or not the police investigation should be extended into the building.  For whatever reason, it did.  Once it was in the building, they obviously decided to undertake some excavation work and located items now known as Exhibit JAR/6.  That was the catalyst for very significant spend, and that was raised in our report for exactly that reason, because up until then, the spend had not been very considerable.  I guess what is important is because Operation Rectangle had up until then been a child abuse inquiry, at that point in time it developed and, in effect, went down 2 paths, because you had the child abuse inquiry ongoing and you also then had a homicide investigation ongoing.  It was important in our report to explain why those costs had suddenly begun to be incurred. 


The Deputy of St. Mary:

All right.  I asked about the validity of those statements.  You see, the problem I have with this report or this aspect of this report is that these are the triggers, we both agree, that going into Haut de la Garenne, JAR/6 and the statement to the media were the 3 major things that ballooned the expenditure, and I asked about the validity of these assertions.  What we have in the report is what Lenny Harper and the people who take his point of view would say was a one-sided version presented as the facts, and this is the problem.  I go back to the fact that there is no challenge, because Lenny Harper, who took these decisions ...  All right, he did not identify JAR/6 as one thing or the other, but I know there is a huge argument around the identification and all the emails and conversations, but none of that is here, so no one can make that judgment, and that is how you have.


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

They are trigger events.  We are not judging the operation, and as we say, we are not saying whether or not the correct operational decisions were taken.  What we are saying is that there was a sequence of events that led to the spending on Operation Rectangle becoming very significant and very outside of the norm, and it is those costs that we then go on to look at.  Our report is accepting that operational decisions were made, and having made those decisions, was the money spent wisely with due regard for financial policies and procedures and with due regard for efficient and effective use of resources?  That is what we are going on to say.  There is a lot of information contained, for example, in the Wiltshire Report from page 310 onwards, which goes through in a lot of detail all of the different scientific analyses of those finds and the opinions that were made by various scientists and forensic experts, so we are not repeating all of that in that report.  All we are trying to do is to identify why the costs of Operation Rectangle suddenly became so much more significant. 


The Deputy of St. Mary:

Do you agree it is unfortunate that you say that Lenny Harper talked about the partial remains of a child “without any qualifications” when that is what he did not do?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

I am not here to talk about that today.  All I would say is that on that same day within the policy logs it was being referred to as a “bone fragment”, so it was very emotive language.  The reason it is important in terms of our introduction is that of course the term “partial remains of a child” is very emotive, and in our opinion certainly would have influenced the wording of a subsequent statement by the Chief Minister that all resources, all necessary financial resources, would be available to the investigation. 


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I am conscious of the time, and obviously we want to avoid having you back but we may have to kindly offer that opportunity.  But if I could just move backwards, the issues around the Haut de la Garenne inquiry obviously received huge media coverage.  We have had your submission about how you go through your staff and you check that no one is conflicted.  What steps, for the record, did you take to ensure that all of those BDO staff involved were completely objective?  How were any conflicts monitored?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

Firstly, there were only 2 staff involved from BDO in the compilation of this report for any extended period of time, and much as we deal with any piece of work, at the outset and before we accept an appointment, we understand whether or not any conflict exists, and to the extent that there is even a potential conflict then we will discuss that with our client.  We were very comfortable here that there were no conflicts. 



Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Only 2 staff; that is interesting.  A big report and only 2 of your staff involved in this.


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

On a day to day basis, yes.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

I wonder I can just, again, ask more a wrap-up question, [Police Consultant], but before I do that I would like revisit this issue about the fact that this inquiry grew very quickly.  All of these specialists were appointed and yet there was not a finance manager.  Would you not accept that it seems incredibly remarkable that there was not?  Because people on the Island obviously were starting to talk of things about the cost of the call: “Look at all that lavish overtime” et cetera.  There are very quick feedback loops in a small community.  People notice things very quickly and jump, as you well know, to all sorts of conclusions.  Did you not think it was incredible that a senior police officer working in a hierarchical organisation allegedly could just sort of run away and spend money in a totally indiscriminate fashion, according to the allegations?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

Yes.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Yes.  I am always conscious I must not lead you into the specific allegations, but there is no doubt that underlies a lot of the criticism made, and there is a lot of stuff (and I have for apologies for Mr. Harper) that he has not been allowed to publicly answer to.  As an experienced officer, you must have observed a lot of organisations.  Why was that situation allowed to happen in such a small, apparently tight-knit organisation?


Police Consultant:

I have some views on it, but I am not so sure that it would be appropriate for me to state them, because I would be doing so without full knowledge of the facts, i.e. in this case, his take on it.  As I mentioned before, I think probably there has been too much speculation without full knowledge of the facts in this affair already that has not been helpful to the core issue that Rectangle was set up to establish.  But yes, I was astonished at the lack of financial control during this major investigation. 


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

I accept what you are saying there, that obviously you do not know his take, but as an experienced officer, you must be able to make some sort of assessment how it might be that this case came about, which would be useful to us, I think.


Police Consultant:

I think I would rather not do that in public, because I think I would say some things that probably would be confidential and I would want to consider more carefully as to whether it was appropriate to say them in public. 


The Deputy of St. Mary:

They might be splashed in a meeting in a way that is inappropriate.


Police Consultant:

Yes.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

Can I move on, perhaps, to the Wiltshire Police statement and my surprise that you had access to, as I understand it from, [Police Consultant], your report to us, your submission to us.  You had access to a draft statement ...  Sorry, the statement was drawn up as a result of the interview that Lenny Harper had with Wiltshire, quite a long interview, I think, and you had access to that draft statement.  Can you elaborate on that?


Police Consultant:

That is not a surprising thing in this kind of review process.  Clearly, Wiltshire were doing an investigation with very different terms of reference to what I had been employed to do, but as I point out in my written submission, many of the issues that we were dealing with were the same and it made sense to talk to each other, because, as I pointed out, I, during the process of my investigations, uncovered evidence that was relevant to their inquiry that they had not already found, and it was proper that we talked to each other because, as [then Acting Police Chief] rightly points out in his written submission, the primacy in this affair was the criminal investigation that Wiltshire were carrying out, and nothing that I was doing and nothing that BDO Alto were doing should interfere with that process.  So, in the course of one of my meetings with them, I learned that they had already seen Mr. Harper, that they had this draft statement (because as you say, it was quite a lengthy statement) and that again is not an unusual investigative process that a draft statement is taken before the typed up version is taken back to the witness.  I asked if I could see that statement.  They took legal advice before they allowed me access to that statement, quite properly, and I was told that I could see it, that I could not have a copy but that I could take notes of it, and in due course, in the written work that I was producing, I quoted from that statement or referred to that statement.  Wiltshire were given copies, as I have already pointed out, contemporaneously with everybody else who was getting copies of my work.  These very restricted people were getting copies of my work, and in due course they had a copy of the final report in draft form before it was published. 


The Deputy of St. Mary:

Two questions.  Firstly, just for the record, I think Wiltshire was not a criminal investigation but a disciplinary investigation. 


Police Consultant:

Sorry, disciplinary investigation, but the same principles applied.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

The same principles applied.


Police Consultant:

That takes primacy.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

I just wanted to make sure.


Police Consultant:

Sorry, that was a slip of the tongue.


The Deputy of St. Mary:

The other thing is that I am still surprised.  Maybe you suggest we should not be surprised, but my understanding is that if it is a disciplinary investigation, then the whole lot comes under quite a cloud of privilege and/or confidentiality, and you are given access by Wiltshire, after Wiltshire have taken legal advice, to a draft statement by a witness to a disciplinary inquiry.  There are no issues there for you?


Police Consultant:

I understand why you might be surprised, but I was not surprised, because it is not common that the disciplinary investigation is going on at the same time as a review of this nature in the circumstances that applied to Rectangle.  Clearly, the fact that it was slightly unusual is evidenced by Wiltshire taking legal advice, but the legal advice they received was that I was able to do what I did.  I am not able really to say anything more about it than that, and as I pointed out in my written submission, I was not there and I was not told about any assurances that Mr. Harper was given, so that is something that you may have to ask Wiltshire.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Is not “slightly unusual” an understatement, surely, if it was made and it was meant to be confidential?  Did they then take that legal advice at your request because you felt you needed to see it?


Police Consultant:

No.  They took legal advice because they thought that was the right thing to do.  The fact that the statement is confidential does not mean that it cannot be used in circumstances other than purely for the reasons that it was given.  As an example, if I give a witness statement in connection with a discipline inquiry, it does not matter what stipulations I put on it or what assurances I am given. 


[12:15]


If there is something in there that is relevant to a criminal investigation, for example, those assurances do not count for anything if there is evidence of a criminal offence there.  That was not the case in these circumstances, but I do not know exactly what the detail of the legal advice they were given was.  I was just told subsequently that I could read the statement, take notes from it and in due course make reference to it.


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Just jumping, [Police Consultant], an issue has been raised that you rebut very strongly in your submission.  It is basically about the alleged relationship between yourself and [retired D/Superintendent] and that this would have compromised your independence.  You have mentioned it, obviously, in your submission, but would you for the purposes of the record like to repeat what you have said?


Police Consultant:

Yes, absolutely.  As I indicated at the very beginning of this session, I used to work with [retired D/Superintendent].  I have known him for about 25 years.  A period about 20 years ago, we were quite colleagues, but in the last 10 years, certainly in the decade or so roughly of me coming to Jersey to carry out this review, I have had little contact with him.  I had been seconded overseas for a while, and then on my return to the U.K. I had been involved in work outside our force area, or I was based outside our force area, and had not had any contact with him.  The fact that I knew [retired D/Superintendent] is not a reason to question my independence in my view.  Reviews of major investigations have been a feature of criminal investigation in the U.K .for 2 decades and it is quite usual for senior officers to review each other’s investigations in an objective, professional and independent manner.  That is how we are trained.  Now, I am not saying that somebody may pull some punches if they are reviewing somebody, but to say that that happens regularly or in any serious level is absolutely false.  That, I do not think, is what Mr. Harper is saying here.  He is saying that I was influenced in the way that I worked by [retired D/Superintendent].  That is absolutely not true.  I was given terms of reference to which I worked, and we had a professional working relationship, the same way that Mr. Harper was mentored or reviewed (he uses the terms interchangeably) by a senior officer from the Metropolitan Police whom he knew.  I do not think he would concede that his previous relationship with that senior officer interfered with any independent work that was being done by that senior officer. 


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

As you know, in the end, [retired D/Superintendent] was to leave under what might be described as a “blaze of publicity” and it was very uncomfortable for various people because he took a very strong position, as we know.  When you were carrying out this review, were you in close touch with him over various matters?  Were you in contact with him on a regular basis?


Police Consultant:

Yes, and yes, I was giving him copies of the work I was producing and I was asking him questions that he was able to answer about aspects of the investigation, but I understand what you are saying in terms of the views that he expressed. 


Deputy R.G. Le Hérissier:

Had he at that point formed very strong views about how the investigation had been handled?


Police Consultant:

I think probably he had, yes, but I do not accept that that influenced the way that I worked, because I was carrying out a review objectively based on evidence.  The only things that influenced the way I worked were the terms of reference that I was given, which are quite plain.  I examined the issues that I was asked to examine.  Now, whether people accept my independence or not is a matter for them, but the fact that I heard views from [retired D/Superintendent], it did not influence me.  I heard contrary views from other people in the investigation.  I spoke to a lot of people who had worked very closely with Mr. Harper, some of whom had negative views about him, some of whom had positive views about him.  Finally, I came to conclusions about certain aspects, which I discussed with the Managing Director and colleagues from BDO before we completed our joint report.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Just one point on that, because we need to get on to the media issue: on reflection, do you think it is fair to judge the 2 together, because to me in my past career, if someone is mentoring you, that is fine, they are a mentor.  But that is a different situation surely virtually having someone reviewing and analysing?  It is a much more stringent process, I suppose, what you were doing.  Is that really a fair conclusion?


Police Consultant:

Absolutely, absolutely.  I mean, you are referring to Mr. Harper and the mentoring.  Absolutely.  I mean the roles were not compatible.  A mentor is one thing.  A review is something totally different.  Both will hopefully result in useful suggestions about how you can achieve the objectives that you set out to achieve in your investigation, but the processes and the relationship between the person being mentored and reviewed are different with each person carrying it out.  I think that is another area where Mr. Harper confused policies and procedures set out in the Murder Investigation Manual and the Major Incident Room Standard Administrative Procedures.  The 2 roles were not compatible.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Okay, do you have anything?


The Deputy of St Mary:

Yes, I do.  Sources.  We were talking about Wiltshire and the fact you had access to a statement made to Wiltshire.  I want to ask perhaps the Managing Director about the references.  First of all, why is there no list of what documentation?  There is no bibliography here and it is difficult to see ... some of these reports, I am not quite sure which report is being referred to.  Would you say maybe there should have been a list to make our job easier?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

The report that the Minister ultimately published is a summary report.  It does not list every information source and it does not list the people who were interviewed.  That was done for a purpose, because this was an ongoing investigation, and the persons who were spoken to by and large were still employed within States of Jersey Police et cetera, so that report was depersonalised for the purposes of reporting to the Minister.


The Deputy of St Mary:

Okay, all right, now following on from that, what concerned me was to see a reference to the Met interim report on your page 9, bullet 2.  You have quoted the conclusion expressed by the Metropolitan Police review team in their report dated December 2008.  Based on that review, they concluded that, at the time the searchers conducted it, Haut de la Garenne and Victoria Towers could not be justified by the available facts.  How did you have access to the Metropolitan interim report or the Metropolitan report?  I am not sure whether it is the interim or the final.


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

It was one of the documents that was filed in the major incident room, which [Police Consultant] reviewed as part of our review.


The Deputy of St Mary:

My understanding is the Metropolitan review was highly confidential and was only to be used as what you were saying, as a review to improved performance.  It is like a performance appraisal.  You go through the way it was done to improve matters.  That is what Wiltshire says the Met review was.  Now we find it is sitting on a database.  Sorry, I am not clear of the status of the Met review, then, in terms of confidentiality.


Police Consultant:

Well, it was not sitting on a database.  The copy that I had was a hard copy.  The report was not seen.  I read the whole report.  Parts that I considered to be relevant and that could be shared with BDO Alto staff, I shared with them.  As you point out, the purpose of the Metropolitan Police review was as you have stated.  It was to improve performance, but that was also the purpose of our review and the conclusions, some of the conclusions of the Metropolitan Police review, were directly relevant to what we were doing and it would have been foolish to have ignored what they had said.  It was entirely relevant to what our role was and what we were producing.


The Deputy of St Mary:

Okay, perhaps we see that their purpose and your purpose was the same - to improve performance - and that there were relevant things in there for your work.  What puzzles me is that we, as States Members, get told by the Minister that this is absolutely confidential: “No one has seen it and I have not seen it.”  Now I find that you have seen it.  I do not follow with the fact that maybe it is a good thing that you have seen it.  What I am sort of questioning is what this word “confidential” actually means.


Police Consultant:

Well, there are elements of that report that it would not be appropriate for anybody outside the police service to see.


The Deputy of St Mary:

Elements of it.


Police Consultant:

Yes, and there are some elements of it that were referred to in our report that were relevant and which I took the view could be quoted or referred to.  Bear in mind that this was not done in isolation.  I did not do this just on my own initiative.  The drafts in which I referred to the report was seen by [then Acting Police Chief] and by the Wiltshire team and by [retired D/Superintendent] before they appeared in our joint report.


The Deputy of St Mary:

One last point on this: I have just remembered what the problem with the Met review is; it is the same problem as with the BDO report.  From the point of view of people who are looking at this as a process issue, which I am, again the protagonists were not interviewed by the Met review team.  I do not think Graham Power or Lenny Harper were interviewed as part of that review.  It is the same issue.  What I am saying is it is the same issue.  What we are doing is referring to a report in a report that suffers from the same problem.  [Laughter]


Police Consultant:

Well, no, I disagree with you there because, as the Managing Director has pointed out, the process is not about individuals.  Yes, I cannot honestly recall.  I take your word for it that [former Police Chief] and Mr. Harper were not seen by the Met team, but the Met were not investigating [former Police Chief] or Mr. Harper.  They were looking at the entirety of the investigation.  The information that they obtained was from the H.O.L.M.E.S database, which contained literally thousands of documents and details of exhibits and policy logs.  They interviewed key players.  Yes, I am sure ... I am not speaking on their behalf, but I am sure they would feel the same that I do in relation to our report that they would far rather have been able to interview Mr. Harper and [former Police Chief] if, indeed, they did not, but they were given a task to do, to carry out a review and to make recommendations.  That is what they did.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

With due respect, you use the term “key players” and there is not a more key player in the whole scenario.  What I wanted to build on from Deputy Wimberley is: with hindsight, had you been able to interview Mr. Harper, we would probably not all be sitting here now, because he could have put his counter-view to you.  You could say: “Actually, we have got the evidence to dismiss that.”  With hindsight, would that not have been the way to go and so we would not be here now.


Police Consultant:

Deputy Pitman, it is not with hindsight.  It was with foresight.  [Laughter]  You have seen the documents that I put forward.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Yes, thank you.


Police Consultant:

I wanted to interview Mr. Harper.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Yes, we also ...


Police Consultant:

I made the request quite forcefully as you see from my written evidence.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Yet, [then Acting Police Chief] has a different angle on it.  That is how difficult you mean.


Police Consultant:

As I have said ...


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Where have you tried to find out what ...?


Police Consultant:

Absolutely.  I have been bemused by [then Acting Police Chief]’s written submission, because ...


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Could you explain it, do you think?  Have you got any idea how it could come about?


Police Consultant:

Well, once again, I could speculate, but I do not think it would it be appropriate for me to do that in this forum, because it is ...


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

No, but it is a surprise to you.  It is fair to say it is a surprise to you where you get that difference.


[12:30]


Police Consultant:

Yes.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Okay, sorry. 


Deputy R.G Le Hérrisier:

Okay, I wondered if we could move to possibly our final topic, the leak.  I wondered, Managing Director, as you know, your report appeared in the ... either the report or words that were remarkably similar to your report appeared in a national newspaper.  What is your explanation of this if, indeed, you do have one?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

Yes, just to clarify, and it is in our written submission, the material that was leaked to the newspaper was not a BDO work product.  I cannot comment on what was leaked to the media.  As again we say in our written submission, we provide you with copies of the correspondence with Home Affairs on 5th October 2009.  This matter was clearly brought to our attention.  We were concerned that anything that was related to our review was finding its way into the national media.  As I say, it was not a BDO report.  There was not an interim report at that point in time.  What appears to have been leaked were, again, some of the early drafts of some of [Police Consultant]’s work.  He might want to say something about that.


Deputy R.G Le Hérrisier:

As a result of your subsequent inquiries and your contact with Home Affairs, did you come to a considered judgment as to how it had occurred and who had done it?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

I think, when we had an opportunity to have a look at the article that had been published on the Mail on Sunday, it became clear to us what material was being quoted from.  Therefore, from our perspective, we were able to narrow down where that material had gone, but as I say it was not a BDO interim report.  It was not an interim report at all, in fact.


Deputy R.G Le Hérrisier:

But it was material that came from your office, so to speak.


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

No, it did not come from our office.


Deputy R.G Le Hérrisier:

You do not think so.


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

No.


Police Consultant:

The circumstances of the source are as set down in my written submission.  The source was [retired D/Superintendent].  He has admitted that to me in telephone conversations.  He first telephoned me about a week or so after the article appeared.  I had already worked out that it was probably him.


Deputy R.G Le Hérrisier:

Yes.


Police Consultant:

I deplore what he did.  I have told him I deplore what he did.  In terms of why he did it, you would have to ask him.  He says - so what he told me - and he has repeated that in recent telephone conversations that he has made to me arising out of the establishment of this Panel that he did not give copies of my written work, but he disclosed the contents of some of them to a reporter.  It was not BDO at all.  It is not me.  It was not Wiltshire or [then Acting Police Chief].  It was [retired D/Superintendent].


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Out of interest, did he seek to justify what he had done to you?


Police Consultant:

He gave a reason, but I think ...


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Well, we do hope to speak to him. We do not know whether he will.


Police Consultant:

I do not think it is appropriate for me to ...


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Just for the record, you are saying he said he did not actually show documents to a journalist.  He verbally, because you said he had not shown.  That is what you have just said.


Police Consultant:

I cannot remember at this distance to say his exact words.  What he says is content.  Whether he handed documents or whether he had no idea, I am not sure.


The Deputy of St Mary:

If we cannot talk to [retired D/Superintendent], we will be able to fire you off a letter to ask for a bit more detail on the contents of that particular conversation.


Police Consultant:

I would be happy.  I would be content to do that if he ...


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Obviously, if we can get to have him in front of us.


Deputy R.G Le Hérrisier:

He will be able to tell us that, yes.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

As we are drawing to the end, can we just touch on the letter, the engagement letter, because that has obviously drawn some fair comment.  Can you, just for the record, explain how that process came about?  I think you said in your submission that the date there was a leak to the media is completely coincidence, you are saying.  Could you just explain that some more.


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

Yes, I will.  We sent our first draft engagement letter to Home Affairs on 18th March 2009 and on 25th March 2009 Home Affairs confirmed that they were happy with the draft engagement terms.  They also confirmed that the relevant BDO employees had been security vetted by States of Jersey Police and, therefore, later that day on 25th March 2009, the initial financial information pertaining to Operation Rectangle was sent to us and our work commenced on that date.  It was not until 29th September that we confirmed the terms of engagement in a final signed letter of engagement.  There was no adverse reason for that other than we had not at that point in time determined how we were finally going to report.  When we started the process, we were not entirely sure what information we would be receiving.  The investigation was clearly an ongoing investigation and, therefore, the format of the final report had to be determined.  We sent out our final letter on 25th September 2009.  In that interim period between March and September, clearly, we had confirmation from Home Affairs that we were engaged on the draft terms as previously provided and our engagement letter does confirm that our continuing instructions amount to acceptance of it, so from a contractual standpoint we were happy.  It appears to be a coincidence that 5 days later the Mail on Sunday ran an article, but it is no more than that.


The Deputy of St Mary:

Does your engagement letter ...  Forgive me.  I have it somewhere in this pile.  Does your engagement letter refer to [Police Consultant] and your working with [Police Consultant]?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

No, I do not believe it does.


The Deputy of St Mary:

It does not.  I just want to take up the other side of this story from [Police Consultant]’s submission.  Yes, paragraph 5: “Whilst it was not explicitly stated, it was my understanding from the outset that BDO Alto and I would prepare a joint report of our findings.”  So [Police Consultant], you are saying that, having been given these terms of reference to look at all these financial things, you assumed that you would be working with ...  I do not know.  Can you enlarge on that?  What went through your mind when you get the terms of reference and then you said: “It was my understanding that BDO and I would prepare a joint report”?


Police Consultant:

It is implicit in the terms of reference I was given.  I’ll just quote from one or 2 points.


The Deputy of St Mary:

Paragraph 3: “The accountants had no knowledge ...”


Police Consultant:

In paragraph 4: “The Home Affairs accounting officers employed accountants to carry out a review.  They have not got any knowledge of management of police operations or police regulations.  The review will benefit from the involvement of an experienced police manager.  As a former senior investigating officer, [Police Consultant] is ideally experienced to work with the accountants.”


The Deputy of St Mary:

Fine.


Police Consultant:

“Where able, he will comment on the expenditure and potentially identify future best practice for States of Jersey Police.”  This finance review, i.e. the review that BDO also have been engaged to carry out, is related to a particular item in the terms of reference for Operation Rectangle.  So the way that we were working together dictated a joint report.  I did not think it needed to be stated explicitly.  It was clear that I was going to carry out the role that the Managing Director has already explained.


The Deputy of St Mary:

Okay, I can understand that.  Now, I have it absolutely clear.  You were engaged by the States of Jersey Police Chief Officer with those terms of reference and you automatically assumed because you talk about the firm accountants that you were working with them, but in BDO’s terms of engagement letter there is no mention of yourself or someone who ...  Is there a mention that someone would be helping you with better knowledge of the way the police operate than you have?


Police Consultant:

I am puzzled by this.  There is this gap.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

This gap between the chairs.


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

Yes, I understand your question entirely.  It was completely implicit that from day one we would be working with [Police Consultant].  We were approved to start work on 25th March 2009.  [Police Consultant] arrived in the Island a week later.  We met in our office on 2nd April 2009 and that is when we commenced the work.  We met Home Affairs together on a number of occasions.  We clearly were updating them and asking questions and requesting information on a regular basis.  Both [Police Consultant] and ourselves were involved in all of that communication.  In fact, going back to our ability initially to undertake this review, it was very much on the basis that we would have some support from a senior policeman with experience of policing ... large policing investigations.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

We have overrun, so could I just end with 2 questions and then I will ask if there are any final points you want to make.  First of all, obviously, you have said that only 2 of your employees were involved in this report.  Can I ask if those 2 individuals are still with you should we need more information.  Are they still employed for BDO?


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

No.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

They are not.


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

No.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

The other point is, and I suppose it is a key one: if you did all this again, how could it be done differently.  You can have 2 minutes.


Managing Director, BDO Alto Limited:

To be honest, the review itself was conducted very, very thoroughly.  In fact, the only thing that would have been preferable would have been to have met Mr. Harper.  Otherwise, the interaction with both Home Affairs and States of Jersey Police and provision of information by them to us was very effective.  We felt that they were supporting and engaged in the process.  We had no real complaints.  As I say, the only disappointment was not being able to take Mr. Harper’s comments, but as a result of that we ensured that our reporting was diluted or did not cover matters that would have required his comment to be able to report on.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Are there any final points that you wish to add to that, either of you?


Police Consultant:

No.


Deputy T.M. Pitman:

Can I thank you for your evidence.  There is a lot for us to sift through and we appreciate you coming in.  Hopefully, we will not need to see you again, which I am sure you will look forward to.  With that, I think we will have a 10-minute break because we have overrun slightly.  Thank you.


[12.42]



Accounting Officer Steve Austin Vautier





As we have seen from the previous submissions, there are now serious issues being raised concerning the BDO Alto review, the States of Jersey Police ("SOJP") and Jersey mainstream media (the "JMSM").



The issues relating to the JMSM will be closely scrutinised regarding the historic abuse investigation in a forthcoming blog post.



So alarming are the leaks that have been originating from the SOJP under the leadership of Warcup and Gradwell that I fear it will have a major impact on the upcoming enquiry on the HCAE.  I believe this committee of enquiry ("COE") cannot go ahead until we know exactly what was going on between Warcup, Gradwell and the role played by the JMSM.  The JMSM should be included in the terms of reference for the COE.



Below are the submissions of the Home Affairs Minister, Senator Ian Le Marquand, the accounting officer, Steve Austin-Vautier



You will see that the Home Affairs Minister has been struck down with some strange form of amnesia as he simply cannot remember anything concerning the BDO review.  I find it shocking that the Minister came to the scrutiny review with no preparation or notes, yet knew exactly what the terms of reference for the review were.  Once we have looked at these submissions, I will be putting them onto one blog posting so they will be easily accessible for cross referencing.



D/Supt Mick Gradwell, as far as I know, has yet to submit any evidence to the Scrutiny Review. His evidence is now vital.  We know he was leaking information to Child Abuse denier Journalist David Rose which appeared  a month after his CTV debacle 


CTV - 1st & 3rd of September 2009



The Sunday Mail 4th October 2009



This is all happening during a live investigation into Child Abuse 



We will be having a very close look at Mick Gradwell and his role in the Suspension of Graham Power, his leaking to David Rose, the trashing of an Historical Child Abuse Enquiry, his showing of evidence on BBC TV during a live investigation, his interviews to the local media on his leaving where he is again trashing the child abuse investigation under Lenny Harper, what he actually brought to the 'HCAE' and who was actually pulling his strings? Did ACO David Warcup assert any control over this officer? Should we call in Wiltshire.



This Anonymous comment really hits the point;


"Let's not lose sight of one simple fact in all this.


The sin that Lenny Harper was accused of was primarily based around his dealings with the media. As Mr Harper has said himself on several occasions, there would always be room for improvement and he has never denied that he might have made a few honest mistakes. However, it appears to have been demonstrated clearly that his successor as SIO, Mick Gradwell, made no mistakes - he deliberately and maliciously used the media to further his own cause - whatever that might have been!  Equally, it seems that Graham Power's cardinal sin was not to exercise sufficient control over Lenny Harper. Well - what are we now to make of his successor (Acting CO David Warcup)? It would appear that he had no idea what he was doing in relation to BDO/Mike Kellett/Mick Gradwell. At best it seems he was guilty of negligent management. At worst????


When I think of how much money has been spent on persecuting Power & Harper and, in so doing, trashing the whole abuse investigation, it makes me very angry. 



Rico Sorda



Team Voice







57 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thanks for reposting much of your original investigative work on BDO Alto in this format. It helps readers to see your BDO/Scrutiny series unfold in one posting without having to go back and forth to older blogs to refresh memories. You are a unique asset to the cause of transparency in Jersey, and it will make a difference in the outcome of this long story of abuse concealment, media complicity and entrenched official corruption.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Rico for all the hard work you are doing to show what a big cover up this all is. Senator Le Marquand could not be that forgetful or ill prepared when he was giving evidence he is up to his nose in it.

voiceforchildren said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Lenny Harper tells us "BRING IT ON"

Anonymous said...

Hi Rico,

What a marvellous job you've done , many thanks.
I've been told that the 'order' for Lenny Harper NOT to be interviewed came from ILM.

Has this possibility actually been put as a question to anyone?

rico sorda said...

Jersey is just one crazy place at the moment. I still cant believe that the former Deputy Andrew Lewis is again running for Deputy in St John. Andrew Lewis, as Home Affairs Minister, is the chap that suspended Graham Power and all because he did not have an ounce of courage to stand up to Frank Walker and gang. He left the States soon after. Now when the thinks the coast is clear, he wants back in, the man in my opinion is a stickleback. Then we have a former Magistrate ILM who acted in an even worse way wanting to be Chief Minister you must marvell at how these people know no shame.

rs

rico sorda said...

I cant stress enough about the importance of Mick Gradwell giving evidence. All the Jersey Abuse survivors should be looking very closely at what Mr Gradwell has to say, especially the JCLA and any involvement they might have with the Committee of Enquiry.

If the unthinkable happens and Mr Gradwell doesn't offer up any evidence then the States have a huge problem on their hands.

The evidence of Mr Warcup on tuesday is going to huge. Mr Kellett and BDO have contradicted what Wacup was saying now Warcup must defend his position. Are BDO & Kellett telling some porkies?

rs

Anonymous said...

By the looks of things somebody has to be telling lies. Question is who? Is it Warcup or BDO and Kellett? Can't wait to see what Gradwell comes to the party with.

Anonymous said...

I don't think that Gradwell will offer any form of evidence at all. I believe he's playing the odds - i.e. anything that happens over here will be played down in the media, even locally, and will not reach the UK media at all. So Gradwell thinks this is a storm in the little teacup called Jersey and anything really nasty which comes out about him will have no effect at all on his life in the UK.
Could he be right in assuming this?

rico sorda said...

True , lets hope nobody googles Mick Gradwell as they might have a surprise.

Why wouldn't Gradwell offer any evidence? Nothing to Hide Nothing to Fear right? Surely he has the Abuse Victims at heart seeing as he was the SIO looking into their allegations of Abuse. If Gradwell doesn't offer any evidence then I for one will feel totally and utterly vindicated in raising these most serious of issues. He owes it to the Abuse Survivors, BDO, Mike Kellett, the SOJP and everybody who put in so much hard work on the Historic Child Abuse Investigation..

Remember, this man gave it large on leaving the Island. He was everywhere ,saying how everyone else was rubbish, he must explain himself, if he doesn't then the charge of deliberately closing down the Abuse investigation can be labelled at him. His silence would be our gain make no mistake but I have a feeling Warcup will blow this open on Tuesday

rs

Ian Evans said...

"Anything that happens over here will be played down in the media, even locally, and will not reach the UK media at all."

HAHAHAHAHA

WANNA BET !!!

Anonymous said...

"Senator Le Marquand has also ordered an overall audit of all money spent on the inquiry and whether it was necessary".

Article posted on 1st April, 2010 - 3.00pm JEP

Ian Evans said...

A VERY SAD DAY IN JERSEY

Anonymous said...

last night the police said it was 4 adults & 2kids now they said it was 3 kids shows how things can go a little skew in the heat of the moment. How come Gull WASNT given the right info

Anonymous said...

With respect to the dead, we need to be vigilant no cover up news is released today and hidden.

rico sorda said...

Hi Anon

Yesterday was pure evil. I have no doubt there is so much more to this tragic story for the simple reason you don't just stab and kill 6 people including stabbing yourself without there being some serious problems.

If im being honest I thought the Dean of Jersey came out with the biggest load of shite i've heard since a Mick Gradwell press conference. Where has this man been concerning his support for the Abuse Victims??

Concerning the Gull press conference Anon I think you are right . I don't have time to look at this in detail yet so quickly watched the interview it looks like he sat down nearly 4 hours after the event and was given the wrong information

rs

Ian Evans said...

FIRST PICTURES OF VICTIMS R.I.P

Anonymous said...

If you're wondering where Mick Gradwell is, he can be found almost every day on BBC Radio 5 Live.

He seems to be the "Expert rent a mouth" pontificating on all areas of policing in the UK.

Now that he's re-discovered his voice, perhaps he'll now show up & speak at the scrutiny panel hearings !

I wonder if the Five Live researchers would like a few more details about his other areas of expertise?

GeeGee said...

Rico – I totally agree that there is more to this really tragic story than meets the eye. I am no doubt going to get a lot of flak for this, but I think there is a 7th victim in all this and that is the obviously very tortured soul who undertook this slaughter.

As I understand it, he had recently tried to take his own life which begs the question why was he not in a place of safety, receiving psychiatric help and care. If, as we are led to believe his marriage had failed and he was suicidal he was no doubt a time bomb waiting to explode. The frailties of the human mind at times like this affect people in different ways. Some people are ‘copers’, some are not, and this has seen the worst result of somebody unable to cope with reality, and what a horrendous outcome.

When this man is well enough to realise just exactly what he has done, he will have to live with it day in and day out for the rest of his life. Punishment indeed.

His victims will be at peace – he never will.

Ian Evans said...

ALL VICTIMS OF TRAGEDY NOW NAMED

Ian Evans said...

Weirdcop going on THE RECORD

rico sorda said...

Hi GeeGee

I think you are spot on. All the issues surrounding this very tragic event must be looked at. We cannot overlook the fact that this man had some very serious issues leading up to Sundays knife attacks.


BDO ALTO

Today we learned at Scrutiny that former D/Supt Mick Gradwell will not be giving any form of evidence to the Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel. Everyone who was involved with this Review has given evidence. After hearing David Warcup today it can only be damaging to the integrity of the Historic Abuse Investigation under Gradwell that he remains silent.

After hearing all the submissions given to date one thing we can be sure is that instead of all roads leading to Damascus they lead to Gradwell. What was going on down the 'SOJP' in relation to all the reviews going on under Warcup & Gradwell can at best be described as a complete shambles. Everyone is pointing the finger towards Gradwell and who doesn't want to give evidence!!! Gradwell.

It now looks like Warcup didn't have a clue what Gradwell, Kellett or anyone for that matter was up to.

I had no idea of the scale of incompetence that I would be unearthing when I brought this review forward it goes all the way to a possible criminal act of a former SIO M Gradwell leaking information to David Rose..

Perchard, Shenton & Power

get those questions in boys because some will be heading your way

rs

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

Where's that video of Gradwell saying that he would willingly come back to Jersey and offer evidence to ANY Committee of Enquiry etc?

Though we should keep this in context. Gradwell looks to be getting set up as the fall guy here, Warcup, the AG, Bill Ogley, the former and present HA Minister's and others have all played their part in this.

Let us not forget what Warcup said today, that he was receiving complaints from politicians..........Wonder who they could be!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Contact BBC Radio5 and link to the records from Scrutiny? They should be made aware of the level of controversy Gradwell is involved in, and of his refusal to answer official questions when there are numerous devastating allegations against him from politicians, his former Chief, and citizen media.

Anonymous said...

OK, so TOR for the scrutiny hearings were after F Walker's and Andrew Lewis's time (even though they are very much involved in the bigger picture.

But surely there is no reason whatsoever Bill Ogley should not be called to give evidence to the panel.

And if he also refuses....

Its surely proves that Gradwell and Ogley are the two in the most trouble?!

Anonymous said...

It comes as no surprise to me that Gradwell will not give evidence. I made a comment to this effect yesterday.

It must be pretty clear to everyone now that Gradwell is in this up to his neck - so he has nothing to gain by giving evidence. He could, in fact, only dig himself deeper into the mire.

Given that Warcup is apparently maintaining that he knew nothing really about what Gradwell and Kellett were up to, he has probably decided to shift all the real blame on to Gradwell and accept his own fate, which is to be considered an incompetent manager.

Perhaps the most important part of this issue is the question of why Gradwell did what he did. Given the way that everyone from the Home Affairs Minister to Warcup and all stops between are now apparently roundly condemning Gradwell, they want to give the picture of Gradwell as a lone rogue operator. But if this was the case, what was Gradwell's personal motive for behaving in such an outlandish way?

Somehow the lone rogue scenario doesn't sit easily with me and I tend to think that Gradwell was operating on behalf of others - we could all have several guesses as to who these others were/are. Furthermore, for some reason he appears to have accepted his fate as the fall-guy.

Gradwell might have been many things but stupid and naive do not, I think, rank among them. He must have got something in return for his actions ............???

Anonymous said...

VFC.

Can you expand on this: that he [Warcup] was receiving complaints from politicians

Ian Evans said...

MORE FAILURE AT JERSEY HEALTH???

GeeGee said...

Oh Rico - what a magnificent can of worms you have opened!

Nothing more to say at the moment.

rico sorda said...

GeeGee

Warcup yesterday Graham Power today- the picture is starting to come together.

All we need now is Lord Lucan aka Gradwell

The BDO research is paying off 100% talk about sneaking in through the backdoor

And what name came up again about the leaking of an email with possible data protection issues - yup ,the assistant health minister at the time one James Perchard

rs

Anonymous said...

Holy cow BDO wanted 26 grand for coming in and giving evidence makes their 64 grand report look like a bargin

Ian Evans said...

WTF???

GeeGee said...

Well Rico - I did not want to mention this before as this is your 'baby'!

Indeed Senator Perchard's name reared its ugly head again, under oath, and from a very honest and credible witness.

Strange that CTV have not made mention of yesterday's conference call with Warcup yesterday, and the JEP has absolutely nothing, nada, zilch either. Oh how the egg on their faces must be absolutely stinking at this moment in time.

I have always said, and stand by it that the truth will always out, however long it takes, and it sure is doing that at the moment.

Interesting to see what Mrs Martins makes of this lot!

Anonymous said...

64k for an eighteen month report interviewing many people, compared to half a day of answering questions.

So the work done for the report must have only been approx. 2.5 days !!!!!

The 24k appears to be more of penalty for daring to question them. I'd like to see their detailed invoice.

Anonymous said...

This was all about saving Jerseys reputation we are governed by some very evil individuals..

Anonymous said...

CTV this evening were trying to justify their award winning report. Even when interviewing Deputy T Pitman they were desperately trying to make the Deputy slip up. But he didn't.

The Rag nothing.

Local BBC TV nothing

Local BBC radio today all day just a report of Graham Power giving evidence by phone.

rico sorda said...

The chap who was interviewing Deputy Pitman doesn't have a clue what this is about hence all the bloody graphics

rs

Anonymous said...

Deputy Trevor Pitman was first class. You just get the feeling that his bombshell of a firm demanding £14,000 (yeah, a bargain I know given the discount from £26,000!) to give evidence to a government Scrutiny panel will really put the cat among the pigeons. Value for money ILM? Deputy, I have to admire your 'TF'top notch performance sunshine.

Anonymous said...

I watched the report on CTV you would of any figure can be described as too expensive when you have no budget, what is the reported basing his shock horror claim of 7 million being unacceptable on?

I feel BDO did a one sided half hearted report so should only get half pay.

Anonymous said...

Just compare the achievements of the 7.5 million spent by Power and Harper. To the 8 million spent by Warcup and Gradwell.

Concidering the 8 m spend by W&G was spent purely to rubbish P&H and their important 7.5m spend.

But when W&G are exposed, the 7.5 & the 8
million spends will be wasted tax payers money....

Because the whole Historic Child Abuse Investigation will have to start again from scratch!

Anonymous said...

Scrutiny could investigate BDO Alto's ridiculous requested charge for answering any more Committee questions. As part of the investigation, Scrutiny could commission an expensive special report on those reasons but never interview BDO Alto or give them any right of reply, then leak it illegally and selectively to the press. That would still be a lot more fair than what BDO Alto did to Lenny Harper!

Elle

Anonymous said...

I seem to be missing out on some of these scrutinity meetings because these blog sites are failing to keep us informed of the dates.Could someone please keep us informed?

rico sorda said...

"I seem to be missing out on some of these scrutinity meetings because these blog sites are failing to keep us informed of the dates.Could someone please keep us informed?"

The dates are at the top of this blog posting under the picture

Could someone please read the posting

rs

voiceforchildren said...

"Just compare the achievements of the 7.5 million spent by Power and Harper. To the 8 million spent by Warcup and Gradwell.

Concidering the 8 m spend by W&G was spent purely to rubbish P&H and their important 7.5m spend."

You can be forgiven for believing that there was £15.5m spent on this enquiry if you watch CTV. In fact the total spend was approximately £7.5M of which the majority was spent on Gradwell and Warcup's watch.

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

The question still stands "were children murdered at HDLG"?

Anonymous said...

Do CTV know what the inquiry is all about, I do not think they do, because they never mentioned:

• To examine the instructions under which BDO Alto was engaged to review the financial management of Operation Rectangle and their methods for gathering evidence for this review;


• To clarify the connection between the BDO Alto review and the review on the same matter separately commissioned by the Acting Chief Officer of Police;


• To identify the reasons why the Senior Investigating Officer for Operation Rectangle was not interviewed by BDO Alto and was not given the opportunity to respond to the report’s findings;


• To clarify the liaison between BDO Alto and the Wiltshire Police, in particular the references in the BDO Alto report to the Senior Investigating Officer’s statements to Wiltshire Police;


• To investigate how details of the review into the financial management of Operation Rectangle came to be published in a national newspaper in October 2009; and


• To consider the implications of the Sub Panel’s findings.

-------------------------------------------------

Channel TV did not report on any of the above points, they must have thought it was a rerun of Power being suspended.!!!!! WHAT A BUNCH OF IDIOTS

rico sorda said...

What a bunch of 'Baftas' you mean lol

rs

Anonymous said...

Anyone willing and able to support the campaign for election as a Senator of Sir Philip Bailhache is invited to attend a meeting at St Pauls Centre on Monday 22nd August at 7.30pm or, if unable to attend, to email philipbailhache@jerseymail.co.uk

Anonymous said...

"Could someone please keep us informed?"

It's blogspot.com's fault - this latest blog posting isn't showing up in the list of latest local blog items. Your previous entry from weeks ago is still showing as the latest.

They've had this bug for years and still can't seem to fix it!

Anonymous said...

found the dates, at the top,under the picture. No harm though in giving us a reminder the evening before.thanks

Anonymous said...

AS I have said before Rico, Jersey has many enquiring minds who are also honest decent people.

The comments on your blog prove that some very clever people are tuned into this, seeing and reporting on angles which are new.

Fabulous factual honest research by you Rico that lit the fire. Now Minister le Marquand and employed friends lets hear your side. Is it not a complete pain when the public are well informed?

Choose your words carefully as obviously you are not capable of the truth the whole truth and nothing.................

Ian Evans said...

The "REAL" Power Of Troll's!

voiceforchildren said...

Rico.

For those who believe Jersey's media aren't STATE CONTROLLED

Anonymous said...

Mike Kellett's written submissions have been published:

http://www.pac.gov.je/submissions.asp?reviewid=194

Ian Evans said...

JERSEY - THE BIG SOCIETY?

Anonymous said...

you and your lefty loosers are doomed mate

Ian Evans said...

I got the same comment from that tit, and filed it under Paedo-sponsor comments.